CAR_Public/110315.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 52

                             Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Greenporter" and "Hayama" Suits Remain Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Still Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hearing Held to Set Dates in MDL Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Remand "Meeks" Case Still Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Mesi" Suit Remains Stayed

AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Lopez" Suit Remains Stayed in California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in "Ross" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Adams" Case to Be Heard in September
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Marcotte" Case to Be Heard September

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Decision in Montreal Class Suits
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Discovery Set for Early 2011 in "Fortin" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Discovery Set for Early 2011 in "Corriveau" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Lamoureux" Suit
ANIXTER INT'L: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit

APACHE CORP: Approval of Mariner-Related Suit Settlement Pending
ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Alabama
ASSURED GUARANTY: Still Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suit in Florida
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Sued for Violations of Federal Antitrust Laws

BP EXPLORATION: Asks Court to Dismiss Securities Class Action
BP PRODUCTS: Texas Workers File Suit Over Benzene Exposure
BROOKFIELD HOMES: Continues to Defend "Plymouth County" Suit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Antitrust Suits Over Fuel Surcharges Pending
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Secondhand Smoke

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: "Deepwater Horizon" Suits Still Pending
CHOICE HOTELS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Franchisees Suit
CNH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend "Yolton" Class Suit
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Vitaminwater Ads
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Woman Joins Class Action Over Faulty Implants

EDISON MISSION: Faces Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
EL PASO CORP: Appeal in "Tomlinson" Suit Remains Pending
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Awaits Approval of "Israni" Suit Dismissal
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss "Fouke" Suit Pending
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Parties Seek to Dismiss "Lonergan" Suit

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss TEPPCO Sale Suit Pending
FIRST NIAGARA: Awaits Court Okay of Conn. & Del. Suits Settlement
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Hawaii Suit Remains Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: "Pineapple" Class Suits Remain Pending
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Unit Still Faces Tree Trimming Class Suit

JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Okay of i2 Shareholder Suit Settlement
JOHN ALLEN: May 31 Deadline Set for Class Action Participants
KID O PRODUCTS: Recalls 1,400 Units Wooden Fruit Puzzles
L-1 IDENTITY: Finalizing Settlement Terms in Shareholder Suit
L-1 IDENTITY: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in Old Digimarc Suit

L-1 IDENTITY: Old Digimarc Suit Stayed Until April 26
LAND OF NOD: Recalls 9,700 "Camp Nod" Lantern Nightlights
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Decreases Reserves for Class Suit Settlement
MBIA INC: Ruling in Pension Fund Suit Remanded to Lower Court
MCAFEE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuits

METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
MICHIGAN: Seeks Names of Inmates in Class Action Settlement
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Litigation
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Stratte-McClure" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Suit Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Underwriter-Related Suits
MORGAN STANLEY: Libertas Securities-Related Suit Still Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Cheyne Finance Securities-Related Suit Pending
NABORS INDUSTRIES: To Settle "Denney" Suit in Pennsylvania
NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement

NICOR INC: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Lock 12 Plan
NORTHERN STATES POWER: Obtains Approval of Summary Judgment Motion
ORTHO-MCNEIL: FDA Outlines Birth Defect Risk in Topiramate
PROLOGIS: Defends Against Suits Over Merger With AMB Property
RAYTHEON: Appeals Court Rejects Class Action Over Defense Plant

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend 2009 Securities Suit
SAVE MY HOME: Homeowners File Class Action Over Upfront Fees
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Four Hawaii Lawsuits
SOLVAY PHARMA: Women's Health Organizations Awarded $8.9MM
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suit in South Carolina

SOUTHERN COPPER: Trial in Delaware Class Suit Expected June 2011
SOUTHERN COPPER: Motion to Amend Derivative Complaint Pending
SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 6,000 Gel-Fuel Wood Fireplaces
STANLEY SECURITY: Recalls 63,100 6K and 7KC series Door Locksets
STATE STREET: ERISA Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

STATE STREET: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Forex Services
STATE STREET: Three Shareholder-Related Suits Pending in Boston
STERLING CHEMICALS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Texas Suit
STEVE MADDEN: "Tahvilian" Suit Remains Pending in California
SUNSATIONS INC: Recalls 3,600 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts

TELESP HOLDING: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Remains Pending
TOWN OF WEST SILOAM SPRINGS: Court System "Unconstitutional"
TULANE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsterilized Endoscope
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeal From Right-of-Way Suit Dismissal Pending
UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits

UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Mercer Merger-Related Suits
WESTPAC: No Knowledge on True Costs of Overdraw Fees, Group Says

* Attorney Files P2P Class Actions in Different Courts
* Court-Approved Class Action Settlements Down in 2010
* SEC-Linked Class Action Settlements on the Rise, Report Shows
* UK Pension Funds See Securities Class Actions as Burdensome



                             *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Greenporter" and "Hayama" Suits Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The separate lawsuits commenced by Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama
LLC, and Hayama Inc. against American Express Company remains
stayed, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws.  These cases have all been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company et al.  The Marcus case is
not consolidated.  The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by The
Marcus Corporation, which was denied in July 2005.  In October
2007, The Marcus Corporation filed a motion seeking certification
of a class.  In March 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, without prejudicing their right to
remake such a motion upon resolution of the pending summary
judgment motion.  In April 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the March 2009 order.  In September
2008, American Express moved for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of The Marcus Corporation's complaint, and The Marcus
Corporation cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue
of liability.  A decision on the summary judgment motions is
pending.

A case captioned Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al.,
which makes similar allegations, was filed and remains in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December
2003).  To date the Hayama action has been stayed.

In February 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation.  The amended complaint contains a
single count alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws
through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a) corporate, small
business and/or personal charge card services; and (b) Blue,
Costco and standard GNS credit card services.  In addition, in
February 2009, a new complaint making the same allegations was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  That new case is captioned Greenporter LLC
and Bar Hama LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc.  Proceedings in the Greenporter
action have been held in abeyance pending the disposition of the
motions for summary judgment in the Marcus case.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in August 2005, American Express Company has been named
in a number of putative class actions alleging that the Company's
"anti-steering" policies and contractual provisions violate United
States antitrust laws.  Those cases were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules
Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs' complaint in that
consolidated action seeks injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.  These plaintiffs agreed that a stay would be imposed
with regard to their respective actions pending the appeal of the
Court's arbitration ruling.  Given the 2009 ruling of the Second
Circuit in connection with In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation, the stay was lifted, and American Express' response to
the complaint was filed in April 2009.  The Court entered a
scheduling order on December 28, 2009.  In July 2010 the Court
entered an order partially staying the case pending the Second
Circuit's arbitration ruling (following the 2010 remand by the
Supreme Court in connection with In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation).

No updates were reported in American Express Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hearing Held to Set Dates in MDL Case
-------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held to discuss scheduling and coordination of the
cases that are the subject of coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under a multi-district litigation against American
Express Company, according to the Company's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2010, two putative class action complaints making
allegations similar to those in In re American Express Anti-
Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, which alleges that the
Company's "anti-steering" policies and contractual provisions
violate United States antitrust laws, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Firefly Air Solutions, LLC d/b/a 128 Cafe and Plymouth Oil Corp.
d/b/a Liberty Gas Station.  In addition, in December 2010, a
putative class action complaint making similar allegations, and
seeking certification of a Wisconsin-only class, was filed by
Treehouse Inc. d/b/a Treehouse Gift & Home in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

In January 2011, a putative class complaint, captioned Il Forno v.
American Express Centurion Bank, seeking certification of a
California-only class and making allegations similar to those in
In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation,
was filed in United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

On February 7, 2011, in response to a transfer motion filed by the
plaintiffs in the Plymouth Oil action, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order centralizing
the following actions in the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before the
Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis: (a) the putative class action that
had been previously pending in the Southern District of New York
captioned In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation; (b) the putative class actions already pending in the
Eastern District of New York filed by Firefly Air Solutions, LLC
and by Plymouth Oil Corp.; and (c) the individual merchant suits
already pending in the Eastern District of New York.

On February 15, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation issued a conditional transfer order
centralizing the related putative class actions pending in the
Central District of California and Western District of Wisconsin
before Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York.  It is
expected that this conditional order will soon become final, and
that those actions will be centralized before Judge Garaufis.  A
hearing has been scheduled for March 2, 2011, to discuss
scheduling and coordination of the cases that are the subject of
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under the Multi-
District Litigation Panel Order and the DOJ and attorneys general
litigation.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Remand "Meeks" Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank from federal court back to state
court remains pending, according to American Express Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2010, a putative class action, captioned Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in Fulton County
Superior Court, Georgia.  In October 2010, the Company removed the
matter to federal court.  The complaint alleges that plaintiff
opened an account in 2005 with an interest rate of prime plus an
additional marginal rate of 2.99%.  Plaintiff contends that he was
promised that the marginal rate would remain fixed.  Plaintiff
alleges that beginning in December 2008 the marginal rate began to
increase.  Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract,
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust
enrichment and duress.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide
class of all American Express Cardmembers who received unilateral
interest rate increases despite their accounts being in good
standing.  Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case from
federal court back to state court, and that motion is pending.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Mesi" Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Mesi v. American Express Centurion Bank
remains stayed in California, according to American Express
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In June 2009, a putative class action, captioned Mesi v. American
Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The complaint seeks
to certify a class of American Express Card members with billing
addresses in 16 different states "whose interest rates on their
outstanding balances were retroactively increased" by the Company.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages "in excess of
$5,000,000" and unspecified injunctive relief.  The complaint has
been amended twice by plaintiff.  On December 7, 2009, the Court
ordered that the matter be stayed pending decisions on relevant
legal issues in other cases not involving American Express.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Lopez" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against American Express Bank FSB and American Express
Centurion Bank remains stayed pending the outcome of an unrelated
case pending before the United States Supreme Court, according to
American Express Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The complaint seeks to certify a
nationwide class of American Express Card members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased.  American Express filed a motion to compel
arbitration, and plaintiff has amended their complaint to limit
the class to California residents only.  The Company filed a
revised motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Both motions were denied by the Court.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the Court
stayed the action pending the outcome of a case captioned AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the United States
Supreme Court and may impact the question of whether the Company's
motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against American Express Company and other defendants
remains stayed pending the outcome of an unrelated case pending
before the United States Supreme Court, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In June 2006, a putative class action captioned Homa v. American
Express Company et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The case alleges,
generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered"
"up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card.  The
complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide class
consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from September
30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates
provided for in the offer."  On December 1, 2006, however,
plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint dropping the nationwide
class claims and asserting claims only on behalf of New Jersey
residents who "while so residing in New Jersey, applied for and
received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from
September 30, 2003 to the present."  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and other unspecified relief that the District
Court deems appropriate.

In May 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, and in February 2009, the Third
Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings.  In October 2009, a
putative class action captioned Pagsolingan v. American Express
Company, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  That case made allegations
that were largely similar to those made in Homa, except that
Pagsolingan alleged multiple theories of liability and sought to
certify a nationwide class of "[a]ll persons who applied for and
received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from
September 30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate
or rebates provided for in the offer."  In May 2010, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Pagsolingan case in its entirety.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the
District Court stayed the Homa action pending the outcome of the
case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the
United States Supreme Court and may impact the question of whether
the Company's motion to compel arbitration should have been
granted.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in "Ross" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting a ruling on its motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned Ross, et al. v. American
Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and
American Express Centurion Bank, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2004, a purported class action captioned Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that American Express conspired with Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency
conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in
certain of their cardmember agreements.  The suit seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.  The class is defined as "all
Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who
used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American
Express cardholders are not part of the class.

In September 2005, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the action and preliminarily certified an injunction
class of Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity
of Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses.
American Express filed a motion for reconsideration with the
District Court, which motion was denied in September 2006.  The
Company filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying
its motion to compel arbitration.  In October 2008, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the
Company's appeal and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In January 2010, the Court (1) certified a damage class of all
Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose cardholders who
used cards issued by any of the alleged co-conspiring banks during
the period July 22, 2000 to November 8, 2006, who were assessed a
foreign exchange transaction fee or surcharge and who have
submitted valid claims in In re Currency Conversion Antitrust
Litigation, and (2) denied American Express' motion to amend its
answer to add the affirmative defense of release.  In June 2010,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the Court,
which seeks dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, and that motion is
pending.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Adams" Case to Be Heard in September
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the appeal against the judgment in the case captioned
Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada is set to begin in September
2011, according to American Express Company's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2006, in a matter captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank
of Canada filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in November 2004), the Superior Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada.  The
plaintiff alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada
charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions
to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian
dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing
statements or solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.
The class, consisting of all Cardmembers in Quebec that purchased
goods or services in a foreign currency prior to December 2003,
claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion
commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member,
interest and fees and costs.  The trial in the Adams action
commenced, and was completed, in December 2008 after the
conclusion of the trial in the lawsuit captioned Marcotte v. Bank
of Montreal et al.  The Superior Court rendered a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada on June 11,
2009, and awarded damages in the amount of CDN$11.2 million plus
interest on the non-disclosure claims.  In addition, the Superior
Court awarded punitive damages in the amount of CDN$2.2 million.
The judgment has been appealed by Amex Bank of Canada.  The appeal
is scheduled to be heard by the Quebec Court of Appeal in
September 2011.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Marcotte" Case to Be Heard September
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the lawsuit captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal,
et al., is scheduled to be heard by the Quebec Court of Appeal
in September 2011, according to American Express Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In May 2006, in a matter captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et
al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal
(originally filed in April 2003), the Superior Court authorized a
class action against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal,
Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian
Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada.  The action alleges that
conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are
credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and cannot
be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA.  The
class includes all persons holding a credit card issued by one of
the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17, 2000, for
transactions made in foreign currency before expiration of the
period of 21 days following the statement of account.  The class
claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CDN$400
per class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages,
interest and fees and costs.

The trial in the Marcotte action commenced in September 2008 and
was completed in November.  The Superior Court rendered a judgment
in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada on June 11,
2009, and awarded damages in the amount of CDN$7.1 million plus
interest on the QCPA claims and individual claims to be made on
the non-disclosure claims.  In addition, the Superior Court
awarded punitive damages in the amount of CDN$21.52 per
cardmember.  The judgment has been appealed by all banks,
including Amex Bank of Canada.  The appeal is scheduled to be
heard by the Quebec Court of Appeal in September 2011.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Decision in Montreal Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting a decision by a Canadian
judge as to which of the several class actions will proceed in
Montreal and who will represent the class going forward, according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In November 2010 and December 2010, two motions to authorize class
actions were filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal, under the class representative names of Giroux and
Marcotte.  Both class actions set out the same allegations as the
class action captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et al. filed
in 2006 except the timeframe for the new class actions starts as
of January 1, 2008, wherein the Marcotte case under appeal ends as
of December 31, 2007.  Both class actions are pending
certification as two law firms filed the same class action.  A
judge will decide which case will be certified and who will
represent the class going forward.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Discovery Set for Early 2011 in "Fortin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Further discoveries of a co-defendant will take place in early
2011 in the matter captioned Option Consommateurs and Benoit
Fortin v. Amex Bank of Canada filed in the Superior Court of
Quebec, District of Montreal, according to American Express
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In November 2006, in a matter captioned Option Consommateurs and
Benoit Fortin v. Amex Bank of Canada filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec, District of Montreal (originally filed in July 2003),
the Superior Court authorized a class action against Amex Bank of
Canada.  The plaintiff alleges the defendant violated the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act by imposing finance charges on credit card
transactions prior to 21 days following the receipt of the
statement containing the charge.  It is alleged that the QCPA
provisions, which require a 21-day grace period prior to imposing
finance charges, apply to credit cards issued by Amex Bank of
Canada in Quebec and all finance charges imposed within the 21 day
grace period are contrary to the QCPA.  The class seeks
reimbursement of all such finance charges, CDN$200 in punitive
damages per class member, interest, fees and costs.  A motion was
brought in October 2010 to extend the class period from July 18,
2000 to August 31, 2010.  No discovery has been scheduled in this
matter but one has taken place in a parallel class action against
several banks in late 2010.  Further discoveries of a co-defendant
will take place in early 2011.

In May 2005, a motion for authorization of a similar class action
was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City
captioned as Option Consommateurs and Joel-Christian St-Pierre v.
Bank of Montreal, et al., alleging that Amex unlawfully charged
interest 21 days from the date of the printing of the statement as
opposed to the date of the mailing of the statement.  The proposed
class seeks reimbursement of all finance charges imposed, CDN$100
in punitive damages per class member, interest and fees and costs.
The St. Pierre class motion is stayed pending final judgment in
Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et al.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Discovery Set for Early 2011 in "Corriveau" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Further discoveries of a co-defendant will take place in early
2011 in the matter captioned Option Consommateurs and Marylou
Corriveau v. Amex Bank of Canada et al., according to American
Express Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In October 2007, in a matter captioned Option Consommateurs and
Marylou Corriveau v. Amex Bank of Canada et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (originally filed
in December 2006), the Superior Court authorized a class action
against Amex Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova
Scotia, Banque Laurentienne du Canada, President's Choice Bank,
Toronto Dominion Bank, Bank of Montreal, Citibank Canada,
Federation de Caisses Desjardins du Quebec and MBNA Canada.  The
action alleges that cash advance fees for transactions in Canada
or abroad cannot be charged under the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act.  The class includes all persons party to a variable credit
agreement concluded in Quebec for a purpose other than the
operation of a business and who paid the defendants from
October 4, 2001.

A motion was granted in October 2010 to extend the class period
from October 4, 2001, to September 30, 2010.  It is alleged the
QCPA provisions apply to credit cards issued by Amex Bank of
Canada in Quebec and all cash advance fees imposed are contrary to
the QCPA.  The class seeks reimbursement of all such cash advance
fees, CDN$200 in punitive damages per class member, interest and
costs.  No discovery has been scheduled in this matter but one has
taken place in a parallel class action against several banks in
late 2010.  Further discoveries of a co-defendant will take place
in early 2011.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Lamoureux" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company continues to defend against the lawsuit
captioned Option Consommateurs and Serge Lamoureux v. Amex Bank of
Canada et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2007, in a matter captioned Option Consommateurs and
Serge Lamoureux v. Amex Bank of Canada et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (originally filed
in December 2006), the Court authorized a class action against
Amex Bank of Canada, Banque du Montreal, Banque Royale du Canada,
Banque Nationale du Canada, Banque Canadienne Imperiale de
Commerce, Citibanque Canada, MBNA Canada and Banque de Nouvelle-
Ecosse.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants violated the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act, by unilaterally increasing credit card
limits without consent and charging over limit fees from
January 12, 2001.  There are two distinct areas of the claim.
Amex is not part of the first portion of the claim dealing with
the unilateral increase without consent under the QCPA.  Amex is
included in the second portion of the claim permitting Cardmembers
to make charges at the point of sale that exceed their credit
limit thereby incurring an over limit fee for these occurrences
contrary to the QCPA.  The action alleges the QCPA provisions
apply to credit cards issued by Amex Bank of Canada in Quebec.  A
motion was granted in October 2010 to extend the class period from
January 12, 2001 to September 30, 2010.  The class seeks
reimbursement of all over limit fees imposed, CDN$200 in punitive
damages per class member, interest and costs.  Discovery of Amex
was held in December 2010.


ANIXTER INT'L: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anixter International Inc. is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss a lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 11, 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement
System filed a purported class action under the federal securities
laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against the Company, its current and former chief
executive officers and its chief financial officer.  On
November 18, 2009, the Court entered an order appointing the
Indiana Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing
lead plaintiff's counsel.  On January 6, 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint principally
alleges that the Company made misleading statements during 2008
regarding certain aspects of its financial performance and
outlook.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
between January 29 and October 20, 2008.  On April 19, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and is awaiting
the court's decision.

The Company and the other defendants say they intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the allegations.  Based on facts
known to management at this time, the Company says it cannot
estimate the amount of loss, if any, and, therefore, has not made
any accrual for this matter in these financial statements.


APACHE CORP: Approval of Mariner-Related Suit Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corp. is awaiting court approval of an agreement to settle
a class action lawsuit which stems from its acquisition of Mariner
Energy Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In connection with the Company's Merger with Mariner, two
shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been filed
against Mariner and its board of directors. The lawsuits are
entitled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs.
Mariner Energy, Inc, et al., (filed April 16, 2010, in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas), and Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, vs. Scott D. Josey, et.al.,
(filed April 21, 2010, in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware). The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
lawsuit also names Apache and its wholly owned subsidiary, ZMZ
Acquisitions LLC (the Merger Sub) as defendants. The complaints
generally allege that (1) Mariner's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Merger and by
administering a sale process that failed to maximize shareholder
value and (2) Mariner, and in the case of the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority complaint, Apache and the
Merger Sub, aided and abetted Mariner's directors in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System complaint also alleges that Mariner's directors and
executives stand to receive substantial financial benefits from
the transaction. Pending court approval, these lawsuits have been
settled in principle and are not expected to have a material
impact on Apache.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit relating to the sewer debt of Jefferson County,
Alabama, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and other bond
insurers, were named as defendants in a civil action brought in
the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama relating to the
County's problems meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion
sewer debt: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-
2008-901907.00, a putative class action.  The action was brought
on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt.  The complaint in this
lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On January, 13, 2011, the circuit court issued an order denying a
motion by the bond insurers and other defendants to dismiss the
action.  Defendants, including the bond insurers, have petitioned
the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit
court vacating such order and directing the dismissal with
prejudice of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Still Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging federal antitrust
violations in the municipal derivatives industry, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts.  These cases have been coordinated and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516.

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.
and Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc.: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A.  In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.  The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits;
although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities, it does
not name those entities as defendants.  In March 2010, the MDL
1950 court denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against BancorpSouth Inc.'s
subsidiary by two Arkansas customers remains pending, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On May 18, 2010, BancorpSouth Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two Arkansas customers of
the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida. The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees
were charged and the policies related to posting order of debit
card and ATM transactions. The suit also makes a claim under
Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The case was transferred to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. No class has been certified and,
at this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate
resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation,
management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Sued for Violations of Federal Antitrust Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01064 (N.D. Calif. March 7, 2011), is an antitrust
class action brought to and prevent threatened injuries and to
recover for injuries to Plaintiff and the members of the Class as
a result of defendants' bid-rigging scheme in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq.

As alleged in the Complaint, defendants Kohlberg Kravis Roberts &
Co. L.P., Vestar Capital Partners Inc. and Centerview Partners LLC
engaged in bid-rigging to suppress the price at which they would
purchase Del Monte through a leveraged buyout that was announced
on November 25, 2010.  The plaintiff says that KKR "secretly
combined" with Vestar, who had previously submitted the highest
competing bid.  In addition, the Complaint states, the Private
Equity Defendants conspired with Peter J. Moses and his employer
Barclays Capital Inc., the investment bankers retained by the Del
Monte Board of Directors, to accomplish the bid suppression scheme
by, among other things, "giving Barclays one third of the buy-side
financing in exchange for Barclays using its control over the
bidding and go-shop processes to suppress competition."  The
plaintiff further states that the Private Equity Defendants also
conspired with The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., giving them a "piece
of the action" to prevent a would-be competitor from upsetting the
bid suppression scheme.

Eventually, the Private Equity Defendants arranged to purchase Del
Monte at the "unlawfully suppressed price" of $19 per share.
Absent the collusive conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff
aver, the price determined through a truly competitive bidding
process would have been at least $21 per share, and perhaps as
high as $26 per share.

Plaintiff Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Pension Fund is a
public retirement trust fund organized under the laws of the State
of Ohio, and a shareholder of Del Monte.

Defendant Barclays is the investment banking division of Barclays
Bank PLC.  Barclays provides financial advice to companies and
financial sponsors, including "sell-side" advice to LBO targets
and "buy-side" advice to private equity firms looking to acquire
the targets.  Barclays also provides debt financing to, among
others, financial buyers in mergers and leveraged buy-outs.

Defendant Peter J. Moses is a managing director with Barclays
Capital with coverage responsibility for Del Monte.

Defendant Goldman Sachs is, inter alia, an investment bank that
provides financial advice to companies and financial sponsors and
provides financing, including the debt financing for a large
percentage of LBOs.  Goldman Sachs also operates a private equity
arm that invests in, inter alia, public to private transactions.

Defendants KKR, Vestar, and Centerview are private equity firms
with headquarters in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          Penelope D. Abdiel, Esq
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  mblasy@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com
                  pabdiel@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          800 LaSalle Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Tel: 612-349-8500
          E-mail: kcwildfang@rkmc.com
                  tjundlin@rkmc.com
                  spslaughter@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Matthew T. Sinnott, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          E-mail: dmogin@moginIaw.com
                  msinnott@moginlaw.com


BP EXPLORATION: Asks Court to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that a decision
is now pending after BP Exploration Alaska asked the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the securities
class action against the company.  BP argued that the class cannot
prove that BP intentionally lied about substandard maintenance
that caused oil production at Prudhoe Bay to shut down.

The company sought relief on appeal after U.S. District Judge
Marsha Pechman dismissed the class's claims as to all of the
alleged fraudulent or misleading statements in the original
complaint except for BP's quarterly filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission made in connection with the company's
obligations under the Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust.

In one of those filings, Ms. Pechman found that BP represented
that it complied with Alaska's "prudent operator" standard.

At a hearing before the 9th Circuit on March 7, BP's attorney,
Richard Pepperman, claimed the statement was a "promise of future
performance" and not a representation.  Since the statement was
attached to a third-party filing, Mr. Pepperman said BP was not
the responsible party.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown told Mr. Pepperman: "I'm more
sympathetic, at least initially, to the first argument that it's
really a downstream promise -- that it's not a current
representation or warranty -- although my mind is open on that."

The judge then asked Mr. Pepperman to explain why the trust
agreement said BP would be responsible for all of the SEC filings.
Mr. Pepperman said this related only to Prudhoe Bay production
information.

Mr. Pepperman also argued that the plaintiffs did not prove that
"someone who was substantially involved with the SEC statement"
knew the statement was reckless or false.

Judge Raymond Fisher interrupted: "The bigger the corporation, the
more insulated it is."

Thomas Dubbs, representing the class, argued that it was "clear"
BP was responsible for the statement.

"To try to push this down the road of 'this is a problem of third
parties,' aiders and abettors, all that road -- that's a dead
end," Mr. Dubbs said.  He also claimed that "one or more senior
officers at BP" knew the statement was misleading.

In his rebuttal, Mr. Pepperman said, "When you're dealing with
statements that are just excerpts of long legal documents attached
to SEC filings, you can't assume that senior management was aware
of those statements."


BP PRODUCTS: Texas Workers File Suit Over Benzene Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that eight contractors who
allege their health has been seriously compromised from exposure
to Benzene resulting from a leak at a BP refinery in Texas City,
have filed a $500 million lawsuit against BP Products North
America Inc. and Pasadena Tank Corp.

The suit claims that the complainants "were injured and had his or
her long-term health put in jeopardy after being exposed to
extremely high levels of benzene" while working at BP's Texas City
refinery on Aug. 19, 2009.

Each of the eight plaintiffs claim that their work area was
completely saturated by a strong odor, the source of which was
found to be a broken pipe.  "Upon seeing the source of the leak,
the plaintiffs quickly evacuated the area," the suit says.

Court papers show the workers experienced various symptoms and
sought medical treatment.  Physicians informed them that they were
exposed to benzene. "Despite the fact plaintiffs reported the
actual volume of benzene that was spilled, BP, as has been its
custom, minimized the leak and release, and its effects in both
its internal documentation, as well as the documentation with the
authorities," the original petition says.

The petition alleges that BP failed to properly inspect, maintain
and repair its piping and vessels and neglected to supervise those
from Pasadena Tank, with whom it contracted to perform the work.

BP Benzene Exposure Legal Help

If you or a loved one has suffered illness or an adverse health
event in this case, please click the link below and your complaint
will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or
obligation.


BROOKFIELD HOMES: Continues to Defend "Plymouth County" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield Homes Corporation continues to defend itself from a
lawsuit commenced by Plymouth County Retirement Association in
Delaware, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On or about December 13, 2010, Plymouth County Retirement
Association, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated
parties, filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court alleging
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transactions contemplated by the merger and contribution agreement
dated October 4, 2010, among Brookfield Properties, Brookfield
Homes and Brookfield Residential Properties Inc.  The complaint
names Brookfield Homes, Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield
Office Properties, Brookfield Residential Acquisition Corporation,
each member of the Board of Directors of Brookfield Homes, and a
former member of the Board of Directors of Brookfield Homes, as
defendants.

The complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for alleged
breaches of their purported fiduciary duties in connection with
the merger.  The plaintiff alleges that all defendants breached
fiduciary duties of loyalty and care purportedly owed to the
minority stockholders of Brookfield Homes by agreeing to the
proposed transactions.  According to the complaint, Brookfield
Homes' Board of Directors allegedly breached these fiduciary
duties because the proposed transaction "was initiated, structured
and timed for the benefit of [Brookfield Asset Management]" and
because the proposed transaction "is not entirely fair to" the
minority stockholders of Brookfield Homes.  The complaint also
asserts a claim against Brookfield Office Properties for aiding
and abetting the alleged breaches.  In addition to requesting that
the case proceed as a class action, the complaint seeks to enjoin
consummation of the merger as well as an award of unspecified
damages and attorney's fees.

The Company says there have been no substantive developments in
the litigation.  The defendants believe the claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend these claims.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Antitrust Suits Over Fuel Surcharges Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (BNSF) along with other major
U.S. railroads continue to face putative class action lawsuits
alleging that the individual railroads violated the U.S. antitrust
laws, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway Company and other Class I
railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges
with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.  These cases have been consolidated
and are currently pending in the federal district court of the
District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869).  Consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I
railroads in April 2008.  The Company believes that these claims
are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations
vigorously.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- http://www.bnsf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight
rail transportation business.  BNSF transports a range of
products and commodities derived from manufacturing,
agricultural and natural resource industries.  On February 12,
2010, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., acquired 100% of the outstanding
shares of BNSF common stock that it did not already own.  The
acquisition was completed through the merger of BNSF with and into
R Acquisition Company, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Berkshire (Merger Sub), with Merger Sub continuing as the
surviving entity.  In connection with the Merger, Merger Sub
changed its name to "Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC" and
remains an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Secondhand Smoke
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a lawsuit seeking class-action
status accuses Harrah's New Orleans Casino of failing to protect
its employees from dangerous levels of secondhand smoke.

The mother of a former Harrah's dealer who died of cancer last
year filed the federal suit on March 9 against the casino's owner,
Nevada-based Caesars Entertainment Corp.  The suit claims Maceo
Bevrotte Jr.'s cancer was "directly linked" to his prolonged
exposure to secondhand smoke at the casino.  The suit says
Bevrotte worked at Harrah's for about 15 years.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and asks a judge to certify
the case as a class action for at least 1,000 current, former or
future nonsmoking casino employees.

Caesar's spokesman Gary Thompson said the company doesn't comment
on pending litigation.


CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: "Deepwater Horizon" Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits resulting from the Deepwater Horizon incident remain
pending, according to Cameron International Corporation's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A blowout preventer (BOP) originally manufactured by the Company
and delivered in 2001, and to which the Company was one of the
suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the
drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it experienced a tragic
explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily injuries
and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge
of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

While the Company did not operate the BOP, nor did it have anyone
on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal
injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the
Deepwater Horizon incident have been and will continue to be
asserted against the Company and others.  Additionally, claims for
pollution and other economic damages, including business
interruption and loss of revenue, have been, and the Company
anticipates will continue to be, asserted against all parties
allegedly associated with this incident, including Cameron, BP plc
and certain of its subsidiaries, as the operating working
interest owner of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 upon which the
Macondo well was being drilled, Transocean Ltd. and certain of its
affiliates, as the drilling  rig owner and operator, as well as
other equipment and service companies, including Halliburton.
The Company has been named as one of multiple defendants in over
330 suits filed in a variety of Federal and State courts, a number
of which have been filed as class actions or multi-plaintiff
actions.  Most of these suits have been centralized into a single
proceeding before a single Federal judge under the Federal rules
governing multi-district litigation.  The consolidated case is
styled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the
Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.  There are
also a small number of cases pending in which Cameron is a party
in state courts.  The State of Alabama has brought a claim for
destruction of and/or harm to natural resources against those
associated with this incident, including Cameron, in State of
Alabama, ex. rel. Troy King, Attorney General vs. Transocean Ltd.,
et. al., Cause No. 2:10cv00691, U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ala., as have
4 municipalities and 3 Mexican states.  All of these suits by
governmental entities have been made part of the MDL proceeding.
It is possible other claims may be asserted by the United States
Government and by the Gulf and/or East Coast States, whose
Attorneys General have notified the Company to preserve documents
in the event of a claim, and possibly by other parties.

Cameron International Corporation -- http://www.c-a-m.com/-- is a
leading provider of flow equipment products, systems and services
to worldwide oil, gas and process industries.


CHOICE HOTELS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Franchisees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice Hotels International, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by several current
and former franchisees, according to the Company's March 1, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Central
District of Florida by several current and former franchisees. The
lawsuit relates to certain Company practices in connection with
its Choice Privileges guest rewards program. The plaintiffs'
complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair
and deceptive trade practices under Florida law.

Since the initial filing, the Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the litigation in favor of arbitration, pursuant to the
terms of the franchise agreements in place. The motion is
currently pending before the court and the Company does not
anticipate a ruling until early Spring. The Company believes that
the allegations contained within the class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

The Company's management does not expect that the outcome of any
of its currently ongoing legal proceedings individually or
collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Silver Spring, Maryland-based Choice Hotels International, Inc.
(NYSE: CHH) -- http://www.choicehotels.com/-- franchises more
than 6,000 hotels, representing more than 485,000 rooms in the
United States and more than 35 other countries and territories. As
of September 30, 2009, more than 700 hotels are under
construction, awaiting conversion or approved for development in
the United States, representing more than 59,000 rooms, and more
than 100 hotels, representing approximately 9,400 rooms, are under
construction, awaiting conversion or approved for development in
more than 20 other countries and territories. The company's
Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality, Sleep Inn, Clarion, Cambria
Suites, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay Hotel, Econo Lodge
and Rodeway Inn brands serve guests worldwide. In addition, via
its Ascend Collection membership program, travelers in the United
States, Canada and the Caribbean have upscale lodging options at
historic, boutique and unique hotels.


CNH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend "Yolton" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
CNH Global N.V. continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit entitled Gladys Yolton, et al. v. El Paso Tennessee
Pipeline Co. and Case Corporation, according to the Company's
March 1, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2002, six individuals acting on behalf of a purported
class filed a lawsuit, Gladys Yolton, et al. v. El Paso Tennessee
Pipeline Co. and Case Corporation, styled as a class action, in
the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co. (formerly Tenneco Inc.) and
Case, LLC (now known as CNH America LLC). The lawsuit alleged
breach of contract and violations of various provisions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Labor Management
Relations Act arising due to alleged changes in health insurance
benefits provided to employees of the Tenneco Inc. agriculture and
construction equipment business who retired before selected assets
of that business were transferred to CNH in June 1994. El Paso
administers the health insurance programs for these retirees. An
agreement had been reached with the UAW capping the premium
amounts that El Paso would be required to pay. Any amount above
the cap limit would be the responsibility of the retirees. In
1998, in exchange for a release of all further liability for
above-cap costs, CNH contributed $28 million to a Voluntary
Employee's Beneficiary Association to help defray the retirees'
above-cap costs.

The lawsuit arose after El Paso notified the retirees that the
VEBA funds were exhausted and the retirees thereafter would be
required to pay the premiums above the cap amounts. The plaintiffs
also filed a motion for preliminary injunction in March 2003,
asking the district court to order El Paso and/or CNH to pay the
above-cap amounts. On March 9, 2004, based on an "alter ego"
theory, the district court held that CNH was liable and ordered
that CNH pay the above-cap health insurance benefits. CNH filed a
motion for reconsideration and a motion for stay, both of which
the district court denied on June 3, 2004. CNH and El Paso
appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. El Paso and CNH
each filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review by
the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 6, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court
denied El Paso's and CNH's petitions and the matter was returned
to the district court. After extensive discovery, El Paso and the
plaintiffs filed summary judgment motions. CNH filed a summary
judgment motion on the "alter ego" and VEBA release issues.
On March 7, 2008, the district court entered several orders. First
it denied El Paso's motion for summary judgment with respect to
the benefits vesting issue, and granted plaintiff's summary
judgment motion with respect to liability. The court also denied
CNH's motion for summary judgment with respect to the "alter ego"
basis of liability, effectively ruling for plaintiffs on that
issue. The court denied CNH's motion for summary judgment on the
VEBA release issue. The VEBA release issue was tried the week of
January 26, 2009. On October 27, 2009, the court ruled against CNH
on the VEBA release issue. CNH intends to appeal this decision. El
Paso is still adjudicating the damage claims of the plaintiffs.
In conjunction with the above litigation, CNH filed a summary
judgment motion with the district court asking the court to
enforce the terms of a Reorganization Agreement, which CNH
contended obligated El Paso to defend CNH and indemnify it for all
expenses and losses arising from this lawsuit. The court granted
that motion and the decision has been upheld on appeal by the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on CNH's rights to
indemnification under the Reorganization Agreement now being
final, CNH and El Paso reached a settlement, whereby El Paso fully
repaid CNH the amounts previously paid to the retirees and
committed to pay CNH's costs in litigating the "alter ego" issue
and the VEBA release issue going forward. CNH has and will
continue to vigorously contest this matter.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, CNH Global N.V.
makes agricultural equipment and construction equipment. Its
farm equipment includes tractors, harvesters, sprayers, and hay
balers. The Company also makes light-industrial and construction
equipment including backhoes, excavators, forklifts, wheel
loaders, and telescopic handlers.


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Vitaminwater Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a sports drink promoted as a healthy
alternative to sugary sodas is at the center of potential class-
action lawsuits launched in Calgary and Vancouver.

The legal actions claim the companies behind Vitaminwater have
been misleading consumers into thinking the product is healthy,
when in fact a bottle contains more than 30 grams of sugar.

The makers of Vitaminwater face potential class-action lawsuits in
Alberta and B.C. over how the product is marketed.

In Calgary, the law firm Cuming and Gillespie filed a statement of
claim with the Court of Queen's Bench in February, alleging Coca-
Cola Ltd. and Energy Brands Inc. deceived plaintiffs with
Vitaminwater's marketing.

The Vancouver law firm Hordo and Bennett filed a similar claim in
January with the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Both firms declined interview requests from CBC News.

The Alberta statement of claim names the plaintiff as Calgary
resident Larry Guilloux.  The lawsuit says Mr. Guilloux consumed
Vitaminwater regularly and believed it was a healthy alternative
to soft drinks.

According to the statement of claim, Mr. Guilloux would not have
bought the drink if he'd known how much sugar it contained.

A 591-millilitre bottle of Vitaminwater has 120 calories.  By
comparison, a regular 355-millilitre can of Coke has 160 calories.

The Alberta statement of claim takes issue with the name
Vitaminwater and its labeling -- a "nutrient enhanced water
beverage" -- and casts doubt on the health benefits of the drink.

None of the allegations in the statements of claim have been
proven in court.

Nor have the lawsuits been certified yet as class actions.
Company defends the product

In a written statement, Coca-Cola told CBC News it did not have
any comment on the pending litigation but stressed Glaceau -- the
Coca-Cola subsidiary that makes Vitaminwater -- will take "all
necessary steps to vigorously defend any litigation filed against
our company."

The statement adds that the beverage's label clearly display
ingredients and calorie content.

Before a court certifies the plaintiffs' claims as class actions,
it must conclude there are important common legal issues that can
be decided together.

Legal scholar Jasminka Kalajdzic told CBC News that proving each
person who bought Vitaminwater relied on what they thought were
the supposed health benefits of the drinks could be hard.

But the University of Windsor professor predicted lawyers for the
plaintiffs will have an advantage since they are claiming the
makers of Vitaminwater breached provincial statutes that define
deceptive marketing.

"So, in my opinion, it's very much a different ball game,"
Ms. Kalajdzic said.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Woman Joins Class Action Over Faulty Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gill Vowles, writing for The Mercury, reports that a second
Tasmanian woman has joined a class action against medical
manufacturer DePuy and Australian distributor Johnson and Johnson
over faulty surgical implants.

Earlier this month, Hobart teacher Tammy Stanford revealed she was
involved in a national class action over faulty hip implants.

On March 10, Devonport woman Eileen Mason told the Mercury she was
involved in similar action against the companies but this time
relating to knee implants.

Mrs. Mason, 66, said she had been in pain since a knee replacement
in November 2009.

"When I had the surgery I thought that was going to be the end of
my health troubles, but instead it was only the beginning," she
said.

"Less than three months after the surgery I knew my knee was much
more painful than it should be."

She said by March she could barely walk.

"My knee was swollen and sore and grinded and grated so much I was
afraid to move it," she said.  "Eventually my surgeon agreed to
operate to see what was going on but just before the operation he
discovered there was a problem with some implants and said mine
might be one."

Mrs. Mason said she had a second knee replacement to replace the
prosthesis in November.

"The second surgery was much more complicated than the first
because the bone had grown on to the prosthesis and my knee had
fragments of metal through it," she said.

Mrs. Mason said although Johnson and Johnson had agreed to pay her
medical costs she still struggled to understand why medical
professionals had not been warned about problems.

"I spent 19 months in pain, unable to do the things I wanted to
do, with people telling me everything was fine," she said.  "If
the company had contacted every orthopedic surgeon and
physiotherapist to warn them, then they could have been aware to
look out for people with symptoms like mine."


EDISON MISSION: Faces Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy is facing a class action complaint in
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner
participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of the
Homer City plant, EME, Mission Energy Holding Company, and Edison
International, claiming that emissions from the Homer City plant
had adversely affected their health and property values.  The
plaintiffs seek to have their suit certified as a class action and
request injunctive relief, the funding of a health assessment
study and medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive damages.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/--  is engaged in
the business of developing, acquiring, owning or leasing,
operating and selling energy and capacity from independent power
production facilities. EME also conducts hedging and energy
trading activities in power markets open to competition. EME is
an indirect subsidiary of Edison International. Edison
International also owns Southern California Edison Company (SCE),
an electric utility in the United States. As of December 31,
2008, EME's subsidiaries and affiliates owned or leased interests
in 37 operating projects with an aggregate net physical capacity
of 11,019 megawatts (MW) of which EME's capacity pro rata share
was 9,849 MW. EME's operating projects primarily consist of coal-
fired generating facilities, natural gas-fired facilities and
wind farms. At December 31, 2008, three wind projects totaling
223 MW of generating capacity were under construction.


EL PASO CORP: Appeal in "Tomlinson" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing the class action lawsuit
entitled Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso
Corporation Pension Plan remains pending, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado. The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a final
average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension
plan. In 2010, a trial court dismissed all of the claims in this
matter. The dismissal of the case has been appealed.

El Paso Corporation -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- provides natural
gas and related energy products in a safe, efficient, and
dependable manner. The company owns North America's largest
interstate natural gas pipeline system, one of North America's
largest independent oil and natural gas producers and an emerging
midstream business.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Awaits Approval of "Israni" Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is awaiting court approval of a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the class action lawsuit filed by
Sanjay Israni in Delaware, according to the Company's March 1,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 9, 2010, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of
Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Holdings, captioned Sanjay Israni v. EPE Holdings
LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products Company,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S.
Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M.
Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Israni Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
along with the named directors and EPCO have breached fiduciary
duties in connection with the Holdings Merger and that Holdings
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
On October 18, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On
February 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs
and fees.  The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is subject to
approval by the Court of Chancery.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss "Fouke" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is awaiting a court ruling on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Richard
Fouke in Delaware, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 23, 2010, Richard Fouke, a purported unitholder of
Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Holdings, captioned Richard Fouke v. EPE Holdings
LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products Company,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC,
Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa
Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E.
Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Fouke Complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company, along with the named directors,
EPE Holdings, EPGP and EPCO breached the implied contractual
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the
Holdings Merger and that Holdings and the other defendants aided
and abetted in the alleged breach.  On October 18, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The Company cannot predict the
outcome of this or any other lawsuit nor the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve this or any other lawsuit
filed in connection with the Holdings Merger.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and any similar
actions.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Parties Seek to Dismiss "Lonergan" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of the class action lawsuit filed by Eugene Lonergan, Sr.,
against Enterprise Products Partners L.P. entered into a
stipulation and proposed order of dismissal of the lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 29, 2010, Eugene Lonergan, Sr., a purported
unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Eugene Lonergan, Sr. v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph
S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon
M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Lonergan Complaint alleges that the named directors and EPE
Holdings breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, including failing to make adequate disclosures,
in connection with the Holdings Merger.  On October 8, 2010, the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a hearing on a
motion by the plaintiff to expedite the proceedings.  On
October 11, 2010, the motion was denied.  On October 18, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On February 7, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal
without prejudice of all claims pending in this action, subject to
the approval of the Court of Chancery.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss TEPPCO Sale Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is awaiting a court ruling on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to the 2009
sale of TEPPCO GP, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 15, 2010, Joel A. Gerber filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, Delaware.  The
complaint asserts claims against Holdings, EPGP, EPCO and the then
directors of EPE Holdings for breach of express and implied duties
in connection with Holdings' sale of TEPPCO GP to the Company in
October 2009 and the Holdings Merger in November 2010.  The
complaint also asserts claims against Mr. Duncan's estate, EPCO
and the Company for tortious interference and unjust enrichment in
connection with the above transactions.  The complaint alleges
that Holdings sold TEPPCO GP to the Company in the 2009 Sale
Transaction at an unfair price to Holdings and that the members of
EPE Holdings' Audit, Conflicts and Governance Committee, which
approved the 2009 Sale Transaction, were not independent because
of their relationship with Mr. Duncan.  The complaint also alleges
that the terms of the Holdings Merger were unfair to Holdings'
unitholders and that members of EPE Holdings' ACG committee, which
approved the Holdings Merger, were not independent because of
their relationship with Mr. Duncan.  On December 13, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


FIRST NIAGARA: Awaits Court Okay of Conn. & Del. Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of class action lawsuits pending in the Connecticut
Superior Court and in the Delaware Court of Chancery, according to
the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In late August and September 2010, following the announcement of
the Company's merger with NewAlliance, ten purported class actions
were filed in Connecticut Superior Court and in the Delaware Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming NewAlliance, the
Company, and NewAlliance's directors as defendants. Certain of
these actions also name FNFG Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and certain NewAlliance officers as
defendants. These actions alleged, among other things, that
NewAlliance's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
NewAlliance stockholders by failing to maximize stockholder value
in approving the merger agreement with the Company and by
providing incomplete disclosures to stockholders in advance of
their upcoming vote whether to approve the merger. The actions
further alleged that NewAlliance and the Company aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. These actions sought to
enjoin the merger on the agreed upon terms and also sought
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions advised
NewAlliance that they had agreed to stay the Delaware actions and
proceed in the Connecticut actions alone. After expedited
discovery was conducted, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which the Company and NewAlliance denied that
they committed any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints,
but agreed to amend the disclosures to stockholders in advance of
the vote whether to approve the merger. The memorandum of
understanding provides that the parties will enter into settlement
agreements in both the Connecticut and Delaware actions, and
provides for attorneys' fees. The final settlement agreements will
be subject to court approval.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fnfg.com/--
provides a range of retail and commercial banking, as well as
other financial services through its wholly owned savings bank
subsidiary, First Niagara Bank.  First Niagara Bank is a
community bank providing financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses through its branch network located
across Upstate New York and Western Pennsylvania.  The Bank's
subsidiaries provide a range of financial services to individuals
and small and medium size companies.  The subsidiaries include
First Niagara Commercial Bank (the Commercial Bank), whose
primary purpose is to generate municipal deposits; First Niagara
Funding, Inc., which primarily originates and holds some of the
Bank's commercial real estate and business loans, and First
Niagara Risk Management, Inc. (FNRM).


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Hawaii Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit against certain of Fresh Del
Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiaries filed in Hawaii remains pending,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in
Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii.  At
a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of the remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii,
holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-
barred.  A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and
terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010.  On
August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: "Pineapple" Class Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits related to the purchase of Fresh Del Monte
Produce Inc.'s Del Monte(R) Extra Sweet pineapples remain pending,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two
of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This consolidated action was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and
indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
from March 1, 1996 through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual
consumers. The consolidated complaint alleges claims for: (i)
monopolization and attempted monopolization; (ii) restraint of
trade; (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (iv) unjust
enrichment. On May 27, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a
motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for
unjust enrichment. On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint
motion for class certification. On February 20, 2008, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect
purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct
purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization, which was uncontested by the Company's
subsidiaries. Also on February 20, 2008, the court granted the
motion of the Company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct
purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the
motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the
basis of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the indirect purchasers. On August 13, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion on October 6, 2008, which the Company's subsidiaries
replied to on December 8, 2008. On September 30, 2009, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Company's
subsidiaries.  On October 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  On November 3, 2010, the appellate court affirmed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company's subsidiaries.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6, 2003. The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. On November 9,
2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended
complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation
of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26,
2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On
August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.  On
October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification, which appeal remains
pending.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. The only
surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only
to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. The Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12,
2006. On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action. The Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on
January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11,
2009.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Unit Still Faces Tree Trimming Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Indianapolis Power
& Light Company, a subsidiary of IPALCO Enterprises Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In February 2009, an IPL customer sent a letter to The Indiana
Office of Utility Consumer Counselor claiming IPL's tree trimming
practices were unreasonable and expressed concerns with language
contained in IPL's tariff that specifically addressed IPL's tree
trimming and tree removal rights. The Indiana Office of Utility
Consumer Counselor forwarded the complaint to the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission and in March 2009 the IURC initiated a
docketed proceeding to investigate the matter. The same customer
also separately filed an inverse condemnation lawsuit, purportedly
as a class action, claiming that IPL's trimming and/or removal of
trees without compensation to landowners constituted
unconstitutional taking of private property.

In April 2009, the IURC initiated a generic state-wide
investigation into electric utility tree trimming practices and
tariffs. In December 2009, the IURC issued a docket entry, pending
a final order in the generic investigation, that suspended certain
language in IPL's tariff regarding its right to trim or remove
trees. In January 2010, the IURC held a hearing in the generic
proceeding. On November 30, 2010, the IURC entered an order in the
investigation. The order permanently redacted the language in
IPL's tariff that was previously suspended. The order imposed
requirements on the conduct of vegetation management, including
requirements on providing advance customer notice and obtaining
customer consent or additional easements if existing easements and
rights of way are insufficient to permit pruning in accordance
with the required industry standards or in the event that a tree
would need to have more than 25% of its canopy removed. The order
also directed that a rulemaking would be initiated to further
address vegetation management practices.

In December 2010, notices of appeal and petitions for
reconsideration, clarification and/or rehearing were filed by
multiple parties, including IPL. In February 2011, the Indiana
Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the IURC and dismissed
IPL's apeal without prejudice to allow the IURC to enter a final
order. After that, IPL may appeal the final order. There has been
very little activity in the civil suit during the IURC proceeding.
It is not possible to predict the outcome of the IURC
investigation, the related request for reconsideration or the
civil suit but, conceivably, these proceedings could significantly
increase IPALCO's vegetation management costs and the costs of
defending its vegetation management program in litigation which
could have a material impact on its consolidated financial
statements.


JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Okay of i2 Shareholder Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDA Software Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving a shareholder class action lawsuit filed
against i2 Technologies, Inc., and its board of directors,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In December, 2009, the Company was sued in a putative shareholder
class action against i2 Technologies, Inc., and its board of
directors, in the County Court of Law No. 2 of Dallas County (No.
CC-09-08476-B).  The plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that the
directors of i2 breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of
i2 by selling i2 to the Company via an allegedly unfair process
and at an unfair price, and that the Company aided and abetted
this alleged breach.  On January 26, 2010, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that sought to
enjoin the merger between JDA and i2.  The plaintiffs subsequently
filed an amended complaint, alleging unspecified monetary damages
in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.  The Company, i2 and i2's directors have denied all
allegations and discovery is ongoing.  A settlement agreement in
principle has been reached among the parties, which is subject to
formal documentation and court approval.  The agreement, if it is
finalized and then approved by the court, will provide that (i)
the pendency and prosecution of the lawsuit and the efforts of
plaintiffs' counsel were a reason and cause for the decision by
i2's then board of directors to provide additional disclosures in
the Registration Statement on Form S-4, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2009, in connection with
the Company's acquisition of i2 and (ii) plaintiffs' counsel may
apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs of
$0.5 million to be paid by i2, which will be funded by its
directors and officers' liability insurer.


JOHN ALLEN: May 31 Deadline Set for Class Action Participants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Truro Daily News reports that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has
set May 31 as the date upon which all members of a class-action
suit against former Truro financial advisor John Allen are to be
identified.

The suit, initiated by Ruth and Dawn Osborne of Stewiacke, accuses
Mr. Allen of advising clients to participate in inappropriate
investment schemes beyond their risk tolerances, including
leveraged investment schemes, and that he obtained loans for the
applicants from financial institutions by misrepresenting their
factual circumstances.

The claim, which now has more than 20 applicants, alleges that the
former investment clients sustained significant and "devastating"
financial losses as a result of Mr. Allen's leveraged investment
scheme.

Ruth Osborne is a retiree while her daughter, Dawn, is a security
worker at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

Truro lawyer Robert Pineo, of Patterson Law, who is representing
the applicants, also names Keybase Financial Group Incorporated
and Global Maxfin Investments Inc., as respondents in the class
proceeding.

The claim alleges that Allen was associated with the two companies
in promoting the inappropriate investment schemes and that the
companies caused them damage by failing to implement a two-tier
compliance structure, which the applicants allege would have
caught Allen's inappropriate dealings.

The claim seeks damages for financial losses in an amount yet to
be quantified for each of Mr. Allen's clients as well as general
and punitive damages for the class action.


KID O PRODUCTS: Recalls 1,400 Units Wooden Fruit Puzzles
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kid O Products, LLC of Perth Amboy, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 units wooden fruit puzzles.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The knobs attached to the puzzle fruits can come loose, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves wooden puzzles that consist of a board and
four pieces representing an orange, a plum, a pear and an apple.
Each piece of fruit has a wooden knob.  The puzzle board measures
12 x 4.5 x 1/2 inches."  Grouping Objects -- Fruit" and style
number10307 can be found on the packaging.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11165.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Specialty children's stores nationwide from November 2010 through
February 2011 for about $12.


L-1 IDENTITY: Finalizing Settlement Terms in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc., is finalizing the terms of a
settlement agreement based on a memorandum of understanding
entered into in the consolidated shareholder action pending before
the Superior Court of Connecticut, according to the Company's
March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was named as a defendant in five putative shareholder
class actions filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial
District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, arising out of the
transactions with Safran SA and BAE Systems Information Solutions,
Inc. pursuant to the Merger Agreement and BAE Purchase Agreement.
The actions were captioned: Michael Palma v. Robert LaPenta et
al., CV-10-6006781-S (Conn. Super. Ct.), Barry P. Kranz, Jr. v. L-
1 Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006760-S (Conn. Super. Ct.),
Michael Matteo v. L-1 Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006759-S
(Conn. Super. Ct.), Dart Seasonal Products Retirement Plan v. L-1
Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006835-S (Conn. Super. Ct.), and
George F. Chrisman v. Robert LaPenta et al., CV-10-6006886-S
(Conn. Super. Ct.).

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions generally alleged the
members of the L-1 Board of Directors and certain officers of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by, among
other things, allegedly failing to receive maximum value for their
shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and
agreeing to certain terms in the proposed merger agreement with
Safran that allegedly discourage competing offers from other
potential bidders and/or benefit defendants. The Shareholder
Actions generally alleged that the Company aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Certain of the suits also
alleged claims against Safran, Merger Sub, BAE and BAE Systems,
Inc. (the parent entity to BAE and the U.S. affiliate of BAE
Systems plc) for aiding and abetting the foregoing alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The Shareholder Actions generally
sought preliminary and permanent relief, including, among other
things, permission to proceed as a class action, declaratory
relief declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties, an injunction enjoining the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement and BAE Purchase Agreement, rescissionary
damages in the event that the Transactions are consummated, costs
and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On December 1, 2010, the plaintiffs reported that they had agreed
on a lead counsel and lead plaintiff structure whereby the Matteo,
Kranz & Dart Seasonal Products Retirement Plan plaintiffs became
co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel co-lead counsel. On December
3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions and
appointing a leadership structure consisting of Kranz and Dart
Seasonal Products Retirement Plan as Lead Plaintiffs, the law
firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, and the law firms of Wofsey Rosen
Kweskin Kuriansky, LLP and Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni
LLP as Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. The caption for the
consolidated cases is: In re L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. X05-FST-CVIO-6006759-S.

On December 6, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Limited
Expedited Discovery and for a Briefing and Hearing Schedule on
Plaintiffs' Anticipated Motion for Equitable Relief and Objection
to Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff's Discovery Requests in the Court. On December 10 and
13, 2010, the Company and the other defendants (except the BAE
defendants who had already filed motions to strike and to stay),
respectively, filed motions to strike the Complaint and motions to
stay discovery pending adjudication of the motions to strike and
objections to Lead Plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery.

On December 15, 2010, after arm's-length negotiations, the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
litigation, which will be memorialized in a final settlement
agreement to be submitted to the Court for approval. Pursuant to
the MOU, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures
in the Final Proxy. Additionally, pursuant to the MOU, the
plaintiffs will be afforded the opportunity to conduct
confirmatory discovery sufficient to confirm the fairness and
reasonableness of the terms of the final settlement agreement.

The Company continues to vigorously deny any and all liability
with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the action.

L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.l1id.com/-- provides
a range of identity solutions and services that enable
governments, and businesses to enhance security, establish a
biometric-based identity, protect personal data and support
various intelligence requirements. L-1 operates in two business
segments: the Identity Solutions segment and the Services
segment.


L-1 IDENTITY: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in Old Digimarc Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc., is awaiting a ruling from the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal in a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to Digimarc Corporation, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In connection with the Company's August 2008 acquisition of Old
Digimarc, which consisted of its Secure ID Business following the
spin-off of its digital watermarking business, the Company assumed
certain legal proceedings of Old Digimarc.

Beginning in May 2001, a number of substantially identical class
action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities
laws were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming approximately 300 companies,
including Old Digimarc, certain officers and directors and certain
underwriters of the companies' initial public offerings as
defendants. The complaints were subsequently consolidated into a
single action, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
April 2002. The amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that the underwriters of Old Digimarc's initial public offering
violated securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged
compensation arrangements in Old Digimarc's initial public
offering registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of Old Digimarc's
stock in the aftermarket subsequent to the initial public
offering. Old Digimarc and certain of its officers and directors
are named in the amended complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged failure
to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements
and manipulative practices. The complaint sought unspecified
damages. In July 2002, the claims against Old Digimarc under
Section 10(b) were dismissed. In October 2002, the individual
officer and director defendants were dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to tolling agreements. Subsequent addenda to these
tolling agreements extended the tolling period through August 27,
2010. In June 2004, a stipulation of partial settlement among the
plaintiffs, the companies, and the officers and directors was
submitted to the District Court. While the partial settlement was
pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate their
claims against the underwriter defendants. The district court
directed that the litigation proceed within a number of "focus
cases" rather than in all of the 309 cases that had been
consolidated. Old Digimarc was not one of these focus cases. In
October 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as
class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling
and, on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the district court's class certification decision
for the six focus cases. In light of the Second Circuit opinion,
in June 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the
settlement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second
consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus
cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class
certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in
the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended
class action complaints. The court issued an opinion and order on
March 26, 2008, denying the motions to dismiss except as to
Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
The class certification motion was withdrawn without prejudice on
October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of
settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants (including Old
Digimarc) and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval. Old Digimarc's portion of the
settlement, which is wholly immaterial, is covered entirely by
insurance.

On June 10, 2009, the Judge granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on October 5, 2009, the Judge granted final
approval of the settlement. On August 26, 2010, based on the
expiration of the tolling period stated in the tolling agreements
with the individual officers and directors, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and Recommencement of
Litigation against the named officers and directors. The
plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not intend to take any
further action against the named officers and directors at this
time. Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final approval
were filed by six groups of appellants. In October 2010, four of
the groups of appellants withdrew their appeals with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the
remaining appeals based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record, and moved
to dismiss the other appeal based on alleged lack of standing. It
is unclear when the Second Circuit will rule on these motions.


L-1 IDENTITY: Old Digimarc Suit Stayed Until April 26
-----------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a class action lawsuit
filed against Digimarc Corporation until April 26, 2011, according
to L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.'s March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In connection with the Company's August 2008 acquisition of Old
Digimarc, which consisted of its Secure ID Business following the
spin-off of its digital watermarking business, the Company assumed
certain legal proceedings of Old Digimarc.

On October 10, 2007, an Old Digimarc shareholder filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against several companies that acted as lead
underwriters for the Old Digimarc initial public offering. The
complaint, which also named Old Digimarc as a nominal defendant
but did not assert any claims against Old Digimarc, asserted
claims against the underwriters under Section 16(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 28, 2008, an amended
complaint was filed, with Old Digimarc still named only as a
nominal defendant. Similar complaints have been filed by this same
plaintiff against a number of other issuers in connection with
their initial public offerings, and the factual allegations are
closely related to the allegations in the litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York which.

On March 12, 2009, after considering motions to dismiss, one filed
by thirty moving issuers and the other filed by the underwriters,
the judge dismissed the plaintiff's claims on a jurisdictional and
statute of limitations basis. On April 10, 2009, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. The final appellate
brief was filed on November 17, 2009; and oral argument was heard
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 5, 2010.

On December 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's decision to dismiss the moving issuers' cases
(including the Company's) on the grounds that plaintiff's demand
letters were insufficient to put the issuers on notice of the
claims asserted against them and further ordered that the
dismissals be made with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit, however,
reversed and remanded the District Court's decision on the
underwriter' motion to dismiss as to the claims arising from the
non-moving issuers' IPOs, finding plaintiff's claims were not
time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. In
remanding, the Ninth Circuit advised the non-moving issuers and
underwriters to file in the District Court the same challenges to
plaintiff's demand letters that moving issuers had filed.

On December 16, 2010, underwriters filed a petition for panel
rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Appellant Vanessa
Simmonds also filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On
January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. It further ordered
that no further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

On January 24, 2011, the underwriters filed a motion to stay the
issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate in the cases involving the
non-moving issuers. On January 25, 2011, the Ninth Circuit granted
the underwriters' motion and ordered that the mandate in the cases
involving the non-moving issuers is stayed for ninety days pending
the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court. On January 26, 2011, Appellant Vanessa
Simmonds moved to join the underwriters' motion and requested the
Ninth Circuit stay the mandate in all cases. On January 26, 2011,
the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant's motion and ruled that the
mandate in all cases (including the Company's and other moving
issuers) is stayed for ninety days pending Appellant's filing of a
petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court. The Company currently believes that the outcome of this
litigation will not have a material adverse impact on its
condensed consolidated financial position and results of
operations.

L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.l1id.com/-- provides
a range of identity solutions and services that enable
governments, and businesses to enhance security, establish a
biometric-based identity, protect personal data and support
various intelligence requirements. L-1 operates in two business
segments: the Identity Solutions segment and the Services
segment.


LAND OF NOD: Recalls 9,700 "Camp Nod" Lantern Nightlights
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Land of Nod, of Northbrook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 9,700 "Camp Nod" lantern nightlights.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

An electrical short circuit can occur in the nightlight's wiring,
posing a risk of fire or shock hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 16 reports of incidents, including one
report of minor shock to a woman and her son, and one report of
minor property damage to a wall, bed and blanket near the
lantern's power source.

This recall involves "Camp Nod" electric lantern nightlights.  The
red or blue cylindrical-shaped metal lanterns have a glass bulb
cover.  The lantern nightlights measure about 9.75 inches in
height and about 4 inches in diameter.  The lanterns have either a
barbell tag on the cord that includes item number 0603041-RE (red)
or 0603041-BL (blue), or a tag affixed to the underside of the
lantern that includes the words "The Land of Nod."  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11726.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
The Land of Nod stores in Illinois and Washington, The Land of Nod
catalog and Web site from September 2004 through October 2010 for
about $30 to $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the nightlight and return
it to The Land of Nod to receive a merchandise credit for the
purchase price.  For additional information, contact The Land of
Nod at (800) 933-9904 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central
Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.landofnod.com/or email the firm at
recall@landofnod.com


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Decreases Reserves for Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation has decreased its reserves in
connection with a settlement due to reductions in claims activity
in a class action lawsuit alleging unfair business practices and
breach of warranty, among other claims, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Between 1995 and 1999, ABT Building Products Corporation, ABTco,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ABT, Abitibi-Price Corporation,
a predecessor of ABT, and certain affiliates of Abitibi were named
as defendants in numerous class action and non-class action
proceedings brought on behalf of various persons or purported
classes of persons (including nationwide classes in the United
States and Canada) who own or have purchased or installed
hardboard siding manufactured or sold by the defendants.  In
general, the plaintiffs in these actions have claimed unfair
business practices, breach of warranty, fraud, misrepresentation,
negligence, and other theories related to alleged defects,
deterioration, or other failure of such hardboard siding, and seek
unspecified compensatory, punitive, and other damages (including
consequential damage to the structures on which the siding was
installed), attorneys' fees and other relief.

ABT and Abitibi were parties to an agreement of an allocation of
liability with respect to claims related to siding sold prior to
October 22, 1992.  On June 13, 2001, in exchange for a cash
payment from Abitibi of approximately $19 million which was
received in July 2001, LPC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, agreed to accept a transfer of all
of Abitibi's rights and obligations under the settlement agreement
and the allocation agreement; and the Company and LPC agreed to
indemnify and hold harmless Abitibi from any cost or liability
arising from its sale of hardboard siding in the United States.
From the date of the agreement, Abitibi has no further rights,
obligations or liabilities under either the class action
settlement agreement or the allocation agreement.  All such
rights, obligations and liabilities have been assigned to and
accepted and assumed by LPC.

During 2008 and 2009, the Company increased its reserves in
connection with the class action settlement.  The additional
reserves reflect revised estimates of undiscounted future claim
payments and related administrative costs.  During 2010, the
Company decreased its reserves in connection with the settlement
due to reductions in claims activity.  The Company believes that
the reserve balance at December 31, 2010, will be adequate to
cover future payments to claimants and related administrative
costs.  However, the Company says it is possible that additional
charges may be required in the future.


MBIA INC: Ruling in Pension Fund Suit Remanded to Lower Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A second circuit panel vacated a New York district court's
dismissal of -- and remanded -- the suit, City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System and Southwest Carpenters Pension
Trust; Anthony Capone; Todd Simon; Mariss Partners, LLP; Thomas
Cassady; Alan D. Sadowsky; and Barbara S. Katzin, on its own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBIA,
Inc., Joseph W. Brown, Gary C. Dunton, Nicholas Ferreri, Neil G.
Budnick, Douglas C. Hamilton, and Richard Weill.  The Second
Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Jose A.
Cabranes, and John M. Walker, Jr.

MBIA sells insurance policies guaranteeing the principal and
interest on bonds.  Plaintiffs are a pair of retirement funds
representing a proposed class of individuals who purchased stock
in MBIA.  The proposed class action was dismissed by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York as barred by
the statute of limitations for security fraud claims.  The
District Court concluded that the proposed class was on inquiry
notice of the alleged fraud by December 2002, more than two years
before suit was filed in April 2005.

Upon further review, Judge Jacobs, who penned the ruling, remanded
the lower court ruling for reconsideration of the statute of
limitations analysis in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010).  The Merck case
held that the limitations period commences not when a reasonable
investor would have begun investigating, but when such a
reasonable investor conducting such a timely investigation would
have uncovered the facts constituting a violation.

On remand, the district court is also directed should rule on two
other arguments MBIA made in its motion to dismiss: (1) that the
class's claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of
repose; and (2) that the class failed to plead its fraud claim
with particularity sufficient to satisfy the heightened
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

A copy of Judge Jacobs' February 14, 2011, ruling is available at
http://is.gd/u6OOscfrom Leagle.com.


MCAFEE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McAfee, Inc., continues to defend itself in consolidated
shareholder class complaints in Delaware and California, according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Beginning on August 19, 2010, four putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara and two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against,
among others, McAfee, the Company's directors and certain of its
officers.  On September 8, 2010, the Santa Clara Superior Court
issued an order consolidating the lawsuits filed in Santa Clara
Superior Court under the Master File No. 1-10-CV-180413 and
deferring consideration of the issue of appointment of lead
counsel.  On September 15, 2010, the Delaware Chancery Court
issued an order consolidating the lawsuits filed in Delaware
Chancery Court under the caption In re McAfee, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 5752; appointing co-lead counsel; and
designating the purported class action complaint filed in Delaware
on August 20, 2010 as the operative complaint in the consolidated
action.  On September 20, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Santa Clara
Action filed a purported consolidated class action complaint in
Santa Clara Superior Court under the caption In re McAfee Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1-10-CV-180413.  These plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint on January 6, 2011.

The lawsuits purport to have been filed on behalf of all holders
of the Company's common stock.  McAfee and its current directors
are defendants in each of these lawsuits.

The Santa Clara Consolidated Complaint and the Delaware Complaint
generally allege that the directors, referred to collectively, as
the Individual Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, allegedly engaging in an unfair process to
consummate the proposed acquisition of McAfee by Intel Corporation
and failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and
approving the definitive agreement related to the Merger.  The
complaints also generally allege that McAfee and Intel -- and in
the case of the Delaware Complaint, Merger Sub -- aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The complaints seek, among other things, money damages and
injunctive relief, including rescission of the merger.

Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, the defendants have
not responded to the Delaware Complaint.  On September 20, 2010,
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action informed the
Delaware Chancery Court that the Delaware plaintiffs had reached
an agreement with the California plaintiffs to coordinate the
respective litigations and, among other things, to conduct any
expedited proceedings in Santa Clara Superior Court.  There has
been no activity in the Delaware Action since that date, and the
Delaware plaintiffs have informed the Company that they consider
the Delaware Action to be temporarily stayed.

In the Santa Clara Action, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
expedited discovery, claiming to need such discovery in order to
file a motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote
regarding the Merger.  The Company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On
October 5, 2010, the Santa Clara County Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for expedited discovery.  Beginning on October 18, 2010,
pursuant to an agreement among the parties to the Santa Clara
Action, the Company provided the plaintiffs with certain discovery
relating to the Merger.  On October 20, 2010, McAfee and the
Individual Defendants filed a motion, which Intel joined,
requesting that the Santa Clara Consolidated Complaint be
dismissed.  Rather than oppose that motion, plaintiffs in the
Santa Clara Action filed an amended complaint on January 6, 2011.
Defendants' responses to the Santa Clara Consolidated Amended
Complaint were due in February 2011.

McAfee intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

McAfee is a dedicated security technology company.  It delivers
proactive and proven solutions and services that help secure
systems and networks around the world, allowing users to safely
connect to the internet, browse and shop the web more securely.


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS Communications, Inc., awaits a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in Texas,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

MetroPCS Communications, Inc., certain current officers and a
director have been named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit filed on December 15, 2009, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Civil Action
No. 3:09-CV-2392.  Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about MetroPCS'
business, prospects and operations.  The claims are based upon
various alleged public statements made during the period from
February 26, 2009 through November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit seeks,
among other relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be
asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, other expenses, and costs.

On February 16, 2010, Kevin Hopson, an alleged MetroPCS
shareholder, filed a motion in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas seeking to be designated as the
lead plaintiff in this action.  On May 11, 2010, the Court
appointed Kevin Hopson as lead plaintiff and on June 25, 2010,
Plaintiff (an individual on behalf of others similarly situated)
filed an amended complaint.  Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss
on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant's
motion to dismiss on September 8, 2010, and Defendants' reply was
filed on October 8, 2010.  No hearing has been scheduled on
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved
in this class action matter, the Company says outcome is not
presently determinable.  If this matter were to proceed beyond the
pleading stage, MetroPCS says it could be required to incur
substantial costs and expenses, including legal and litigation
expenses, to defend this matter and/or be required to pay
substantial damages or settlement costs, which could materially
adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of
operations.


MICHIGAN: Seeks Names of Inmates in Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Gray, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Timothy Connors on March 9 said
that he believes in the policies of enforcing child support and
restitution orders for victims of crimes, signaling he's prepared
to make sure that a group of at least 800 female inmates who won a
$100-million class action settlement make good on the debts they
owe.

"I would like all of you to figure out and give me some
proposals," Mr. Connors said during a court hearing on March 10.
"It seems we ought to be able to collect child support and
restitution."

Oakland and Wayne counties and the state of Michigan, are trying
to find out the names of the women and how much settlement money
they were awarded because of sexual assault and abuse they
received while serving their terms in Michigan prisons.  They want
to determine if the women owe restitution to their original
victims or back child support.

"We have the names of 15 women who might be part of the
settlement, but we're operating totally in the dark here," said
Mary Mara, an attorney for Oakland County.  "There's no oversight
and no accountability."

They've been hampered in that effort by a protective order signed
by Mr. Connors to prohibit the release of the women's names or how
much of the settlement they received.

Mr. Connors said he wants to balance the need for privacy for the
inmates versus the public policy aims of victims' rights and child
support.

"There was no question after the two jury verdicts, that the
public was concerned about how our government institutions had
treated these women.  The evidence was clear," Mr. Connors said of
the millions awarded to 18 female inmates, which ultimately was
included in the class action settlement.

He also worried that if the names became public, that the inmates
would become targets of predatory lenders, who promise loans in
anticipation of the settlement proceeds and then charge exorbitant
interest fees.

While he said he doesn't want a big public release of the names,
he said a compromise should happen.  He suggested that Wayne,
Oakland and the state develop a list of all the women who owe
restitution or back child support for time period of 1993 to 2006.
That list would be turned over to the attorneys for the inmates to
determine if the women who received settlement funds owed
restitution or child support.

While Wayne, Oakland and the state viewed the hearing as a step in
the right direction toward a workable compromise, Deb LaBelle,
attorney for the inmates, said that just because the three
entities produce such a list doesn't mean they'll get the names of
the women raped in prison.

"This is a process, we'll see where it goes," she said after the
hearing.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against consolidated
class action complaints, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, filed in New York.

Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on
behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee
stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties,
including certain present and former directors and officers, under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  In February
2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding,
which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation.  The
consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes
allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal
controls, accounting and other matters.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common
stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with
its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately
disclosed.  Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest
and fees.  On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Stratte-McClure" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a securities
class complaint commenced by Joel Stratte-McClure and certain
other plaintiffs.

On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action,
which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company
and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and
asserting claims for violations of the securities laws.  The
amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Subject to certain
exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to
December 19, 2007, and who suffered damages as a result of such
purchases.  The allegations in the amended complaint relate in
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related
losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's
disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees.  On
April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


MORGAN STANLEY: Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint for alleged misrepresentation with respect to certain
mortgage pass through certificates.

On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, alleging, among
other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of
mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained
false and misleading information concerning the pools of
residential loans that backed these securitizations.  The
plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs,
interest and fees.  This case, which was consolidated with an
earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the
lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint.  On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff,
together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended
complaint which purports to assert claims against the Company and
others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates
issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential
mortgage loans.  The second amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges, among
other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and
rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees.  On October 11,
2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Underwriter-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against class action
complaints related to its role as underwriter of securities for
certain other entities.

Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several
putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the
syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage
pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related
entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-
related losses.  The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained various material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees.  The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through
certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings
underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-
defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants.  Some
of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers or their affiliates that have filed
for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.

In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order
certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the
Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual
Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an
underwriter.  The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of
the securities covered by the class certified by the court.

In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities
issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008.  The
Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal
amount of the offerings at issue.  On June 5, 2010, the
underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
filed by the lead plaintiffs.

In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued
by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during
2006 and 2007.  The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the
principal amount of the offerings originally at issue.  On
June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the
underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
class action complaint.  The Company underwrote approximately $46
million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue
following the court's June 21, 2010 decision.  On May 17, 2010,
certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the
litigation in order to assert claims related to additional
offerings.  The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of
the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the
motion to intervene.  The Company is opposing the motion to
intervene.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


MORGAN STANLEY: Libertas Securities-Related Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit related to the issuance of certain notes by Libertas III
CDO.

On December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action
against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250
million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March
2007.  The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The complaint asserts claims
for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and alleges that the
Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA ratings of the
CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral held by the
Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if that collateral defaulted.
The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs.  On
March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


MORGAN STANLEY: Cheyne Finance Securities-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint related to the issuance of Cheyne Finance SIV
securities.

On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance.  The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et
al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading
because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks
associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed
securities held by the SIV.  On September 2, 2009, the court
dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for
plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On
July 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their
aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company,
and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on
August 5, 2010.  Since the filing of the initial complaint,
various additional plaintiffs have been added to the case.  There
are currently 14 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related to
securities issued by the SIV.  Plaintiffs have not alleged the
amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other
relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: To Settle "Denney" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. anticipates settling in the first or second
quarter of 2011 the claims in the class action lawsuit filed by
Jordan Denney in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's March 1,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2010, Nabors and its wholly owned subsidiary, Diamond
Acquisition Corp. were sued in three putative shareholder class
actions.  Two of the cases were dismissed.  The remaining case
pending, Jordan Denney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. David E. Wallace, et al., Civil Action No.
10-1154, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  The suits were brought against
Superior Well Services, Inc., the individual members of its board
of directors, certain of Superior's senior officers, Nabors and
Diamond.  The complaints alleged that Superior's officers and
directors violated various provisions of the Exchange Act and
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition
by the Company of Superior, and that Nabors and Diamond aided and
abetted these violations.  The complaints sought injunctive
relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the
Superior Merger, monetary damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
The claim against Superior and its directors is covered by
insurance after a deductible amount.

The Company anticipates settling the claims in the first or second
quarter of 2011, and that any settlement will be funded by
Superior's insurers to the extent it exceeds the Company's
deductible.


NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
agreement in principle to resolve class action lawsuits brought by
its stockholders in Connecticut and Delaware, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On or about August 20, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Stanley P.
Kops against NewAlliance and its directors in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven (NNH-CV10-
6013984) challenging the proposed merger between NewAlliance and
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.  The purported class action
alleges that the NewAlliance board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties to NewAlliance stockholders by failing to
maximize stockholder value in approving the merger agreement with
First Niagara and that NewAlliance and First Niagara aided and
abetted this alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

Since the first action was commenced, nine additional lawsuits
have been filed against NewAlliance, First Niagara, Merger Sub,
and/or the NewAlliance directors and certain officers of
NewAlliance.  The plaintiffs in the additional lawsuits are:
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan (NNH-
CV10-6014110); Cynthia J. Kops (NNH-CV10-6014155); Joseph
Caldarella (NNH-CV10-6014192); Michael Rubin (NNH-CV10-6014328);
Arlene H. Levine and Gertrude M. Nitkin (NNH-CV10-6014477); Port
Authority of Alleghany County Retirement & Disability Allowance
Plan for Employees Represented by Local 85 of the Amalgamated
Transit Union (NN-CV10-6014634); Alan Kahn (Case No. 5785); Moses
Eilenberg (Case No. 5796); and Erie County Employees' Retirement
System (Case No. 5831).  The latter three lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the remainder
were filed in the Connecticut Superior Court.  The claims in the
nine additional lawsuits are substantially the same as the claims
in the first lawsuit and seek, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger on the agreed upon terms.  Certain of the new
actions, however, also seek attorneys' and experts' fees and
actual and punitive damages if the merger is completed.

On September 28, 2010, the three Delaware actions were
consolidated into In re NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (No. 5785-VCP), and the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed an amended complaint which adds allegations
challenging the accuracy of disclosures in the preliminary Form
S-4, a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking
any action to consummate the merger and a motion seeking expedited
discovery. On October 22, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for expedited discovery and tentatively scheduled a preliminary
injunction hearing for December 1, 2010.

On October 19, 2010, the seven Connecticut actions were
transferred to the complex litigation docket in the Judicial
District of Stamford. The cases were consolidated on October 20
and, on October 22, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which adds allegations challenging the accuracy of disclosure in
the preliminary Form S-4. The plaintiffs in the Connecticut
actions also have indicated that they intend to seek a preliminary
injunction and expedited discovery.

On October 18 and 19, 2010, the Company and other defendants filed
motions in the seven Connecticut actions and in the consolidated
Delaware action requesting that the courts direct the plaintiffs
in all the actions to confer and agree on a single forum in which
to litigate their claims, or if the plaintiffs are unable to
agree, that the courts confer and designate a single forum, and
that the cases in the other forum be stayed. The defendants'
motions are pending.

On December 6, 2010, the parties to the Connecticut and Delaware
actions reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
Connecticut Action and the Delaware Action. Part of that agreement
was that the defendants would not object to the payment of
plaintiffs' attorney fees up to $750,000. The settlement
contemplated by the agreement has been submitted to the
Connecticut court for approval. Immediately following final
approval by the Connecticut court of the settlement, the parties
to the Delaware actions shall dismiss those actions with
prejudice. As part of the settlement, the defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures in the
joint proxy/statement prospectus were inadequate but have agreed
to provide supplemental disclosures. These supplemental
disclosures were provided in the Company's Current Report on Form
8-K, filed on December 6, 2010. The settlement will not affect the
timing of the merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in
the merger. There are no injunction proceedings pending at this
time.


NICOR INC: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Lock 12 Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sweetow, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Nicor, Inc., and Prairie Point Energy (d/b/a Nicor
Advanced Energy, LLC), Case No. 2011-CH-08681 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. March 8, 2011), alleges unfair and deceptive marketing of
Nicor Advanced' Lock 12 plan, in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Plaintiff
alleges that he had been deceived by Nicor Advanced' marketing of
its Lock 12 plan, having been led to believe that the Lock 12
program was the same as Nicor Gas' Budget Plan, and that Nicor
Advanced was the same company as Nicor Gas.

The plaintiff explains that when he asked Nicor Advanced for a
refund of his overpayment over market prices at the end of the
previous year under Nicor Gas' Budget Plan, he was informed that
the Lock 12 program was not the same as the Budget Plan, and that
he would not receive any refund.

Plaintiff did not renew his Lock 12 plan in September of 2009 and
now brings this lawsuit to recover the amount he overpaid to Nicor
Advanced and to Nicor from 2006 to 2009, above what he would have
paid to Nicor Gas.

Nicor, Inc., owns 100% percent of Nicor Advanced, a Delaware
limited liability company which markets and sells natural gas in
the State of Illinois, including in Cook County, to Illinois
residents and businesses.

Nicor is the parent holding company of a number of energy-related
companies that do business in Illinois.  Nicor's largest
subsidiary is the natural gas utility Northern Illinois Gas
Company (d/b/a Nicor Gas Company).  Nicor Gas is a public utility
regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), which sets
the rates that utilities like Nicor Gas can charge Illinois
consumers.  Mr. Sweetow explains that Nicor Gas cannot profit from
the sale of natural gas because the ICC requires regulated gas
suppliers to sell the natural gas they purchase for their
customers at cost, without any markup.  According to Mr. Sweetow,
the profit that Nicor Gas earns for Nicor shareholders comes from
fixed monthly fees and variable volume-based delivery fees that
Nicor Gas charges its customers.

In 2002, the Illinois legislature deregulated the natural gas
industry, thereby allowing Alternative Gas Suppliers to provide
natural gas to Illinois residents and businesses without
regulation from the ICC.  Shortly after, a number of Alternative
Gas Suppliers began competing for Nicor Gas customers.

Realizing that it can make an additional profit from the existing
customers of its regulated subsidiary Nicor Gas, Nicor's officers
and directors decided to form their own Alternative Gas Supplier
that could deliver additional revenue for Nicor's shareholders.
As a consequence, Nicor created Nicor Advanced, a wholly-owned
subsidiary that is certified by the ICC as an Alternative Gas
Supplier.

One of Nicor Advanced's unregulated natural gas products - the one
that is the subject of Plaintiff's Complaint - was the Lock 12
billing plan for residential natural gas service.  Nicor Advanced
created the Lock 12 plan to specifically mimic the Budget Plan
offered by Nicor Gas.

Like Nicor Gas's Budget Plan, Nicor Advanced Energy's Lock 12 plan
spread the estimated cost of a customer's natural gas for the next
year over 12 equal monthly installments.  Unlike the Budget Plan,
however, Nicor Advanced included in the Lock 12 rate a substantial
and undisclosed premium in excess of estimated cost.  If the
actual cost of natural gas over the course of the year was lower
than the annual Lock 12 rate, Nicor Advanced kept the overpayment.
If the actual cost was greater than the estimated cost, the
customer did not have to pay the difference.  But if a customer's
natural gas cost increased as a result of increased usage, as
opposed to price, Nicor Advanced reserved the right to raise the
Lock 12 rate or terminate the plan altogether.  Through the Lock
12 rate, Nicor Advanced also passed on to the customer all of the
delivery and service fees charged by Nicor Gas, thereby preserving
Nicor Gas's existing revenue stream associated with a customer
switching to Nicor Advanced.

To hold customers captive to the Lock 12 plan, Nicor Advanced
assessed a cancellation penalty in the amount of three months of
Lock 12 payments, which typically totaled several hundred dollars.
The purpose and effect of this punitive cancellation fee,
plaintiff avers, was to penalize customers for leaving Lock 12 and
to create an additional windfall for Nicor Advanced and for Nicor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
         Maximilian C. Gibbons, Esq.
         Matthew C. Davies, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY
         205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1940
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 899-5063

              - and -

         Michael Klenov #6300228
         KOREIN TILLERY
         One U.S. Bank Plaza
         505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
         Telephone: (314) 241-4844


NORTHERN STATES POWER: Obtains Approval of Summary Judgment Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin court has granted a motion for summary judgment filed
by Northern States Power Company in a class action lawsuit
alleging improper refund practices, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Plaintiff in the purported class action, served in late 2009 and
venued in County Circuit Court in Eau Claire, Wis., alleges that
NSP-Wisconsin has engaged in unfair and improper refund practices
regarding the cost of service extensions and seeks certification
of a class of those similarly situated.  Plaintiff claims
entitlement to actual damages in an amount, as yet undetermined,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs.  NSP-
Wisconsin filed a motion for summary judgment in April 2010 and
filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification
in July 2010.  In January 2011, the court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting NSP-
Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: FDA Outlines Birth Defect Risk in Topiramate
----------------------------------------------------------
The FDA has released a safety announcement regarding Topamax and
pregnancy to inform the public that there is an increased risk of
oral birth defects in children born to women who took Topamax
during pregnancy.  Topamax (generic: topiramate) is a drug used to
treat epileptic seizures and to prevent migraines and, according
to the new FDA announcement, can raise the risk of cleft lips and
cleft palates in infants exposed to topiramate during pregnancy.
If you delivered a child with an oral birth defect after taking
topiramate during pregnancy, visit
http://www.classaction.org/topamax.htmlto learn more about
Topamax birth defects and to receive a no cost, legal evaluation
of your claim.

Birth defects which may result from use of Topamax during
pregnancy include cleft lips and cleft palates, types of birth
defects which develop when parts of the lip or palate do not join
together completely.  This Topamax side effect can range from a
tiny notch in the lip to a split which runs into the nose and roof
of the mouth.  Topamax birth defects may result in minimal
problems for the infant or, in cases of large malformations,
interfere with eating and speaking.  Surgery may be needed to
close the gap between the lip and palate forming from the
topiramate birth defect.

Due to the risk of Topamax birth defects, the FDA will strengthen
the warning on topiramate.  The drug was previously classified
under the Pregnancy Category C, indicating that data from animal
research suggested potential risks to a fetus, but adequate
research from human trials was not available at the time of
approval.  However, due to the risk of Topamax birth defects,
topiramate will now be classified as a Pregnancy Category D drug;
this means that there is positive evidence of risk to a human
fetus based on human research, but the potential benefits of
topiramate in pregnant women may outweigh its risks in some cases.

If you delivered a child with an oral birth defect after taking
Topamax during pregnancy, you may have legal recourse.  Topamax
users who bore children with topiramate birth defects may be able
to participate in a Topamax lawsuit to recover compensation for
medical expenses and other damages resulting from their child's
Topamax side effects.  To find out if you are eligible for a
Topamax lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today and complete the
free case evaluation form.  The birth defect attorneys working
with the site are offering this case review at no cost and with no
obligation and remain committed to protecting the rights of women
who delivered infants with Topamax birth defects.

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


PROLOGIS: Defends Against Suits Over Merger With AMB Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
ProLogis is defending itself against complaints related to its
merger agreement with AMB Property Corporation, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On January 30, 2011, the Company and three of its newly formed,
wholly owned subsidiaries, entered into a definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger with AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland
corporation, and AMB Property, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership.

In connection with the announcement of the Merger Agreement, five
complaints have been filed and remain pending through February 21,
2011.  Three of the actions have been filed in the District Court
for the City and County of Denver, Colorado.  On February 2, 2011,
a class action complaint was filed by James Kinsey, on behalf of
himself and purportedly those similarly situated, against
ProLogis, each of its trustees, its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer, AMB, New Pumpkin Inc., Upper Pumpkin LLC,
Pumpkin LLC and AMB LP alleging that the Company's trustees, chief
executive officer and chief financial officer breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement and that the Company, AMB, New Pumpkin, Upper Pumpkin,
Pumpkin and AMB LP aided and abetted the breaches of those
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks among other relief to (i)
enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger unless and
until they adopt and implement a procedure or process reasonably
designed to enter into a merger agreement providing the best
possible value for shareholders, (ii) direct the defendants to
exercise their fiduciary duties to commence a sale process, (iii)
rescind the already implemented Merger Agreement, (iv) impose a
constructive trust in favor of the class upon any benefits
improperly received by defendants, and (v) award plaintiff's costs
and disbursements of the action.  On
February 16, 2011, a class action complaint was filed by Gene
Moorhead, on behalf of himself and purportedly those similarly
situated, against the same defendants other than the Company's
chief financial officer alleging that the Company's trustees
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into
the Merger Agreement and that the Company, AMB, New Pumpkin, Upper
Pumpkin, Pumpkin and AMB LP aided and abetted the breaches of
those fiduciary duties -- the Moorhead Matter.  The plaintiff in
this action seeks among other relief to (i) enjoin the defendants,
from consummating the Merger unless and until they adopt and
implement a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible
value for shareholders; (ii) direct the Company's trustees and
chief executive officer to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the
Company's shareholders and refrain from entering into any
transaction until the process for the sale or merger is completed
and the highest possible value is obtained; (iii) rescind, to the
extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement, and (iv) award
plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action. On February 18,
2011, a class action complaint was filed by Palisades Pointe
Partners LTD, on behalf of itself and purportedly those similarly
situated shareholders of ProLogis, against the same defendants in
the Moorhead Matter alleging that the Company's trustees breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and that the
Company, AMB, New Pumpkin, Upper Pumpkin, Pumpkin and AMB LP aided
and abetted the breaches of those fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff
in this action seeks among other relief to (i) preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger,
from placing their own interests ahead of the interests of the
shareholders, and from implementing certain measures provided for
in the Merger Agreement, (ii) declare that defendants' conduct in
approving the Merger constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and
(iii) award plaintiff's appropriate compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.

Two of the actions have been filed in the Circuit Court of
Maryland for Baltimore County.  On February 16, 2011, a class
action and derivative complaint was filed by Vernon C. Burrows, on
behalf of himself, derivatively on behalf of ProLogis and
purportedly those similarly situated, against the same defendants
other than the Company's chief financial officer alleging that the
Company's trustees breached their fiduciary duties and wasted
corporate assets in connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement and that the Company, AMB, New Pumpkin, Upper Pumpkin,
Pumpkin and AMB LP aided and abetted the breaches of those
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff in this action seeks among other
relief to (i) enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, the Merger,
(ii) rescind the Merger in the event it is consummated or award
rescissory damages, (iii) direct the defendants to account to
plaintiff for all damages, profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of their breaches of fiduciary duties; and
(iv) award plaintiff the costs of the action.  On February 17,
2011, a class action complaint was filed by Marshall Ferguson Jr.,
on behalf of himself, derivatively on behalf of ProLogis and
purportedly those similarly situated, against the same defendants
other than the Company's chief financial officer alleging that the
Company's trustees breached their fiduciary duties, wasted
corporate assets in connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement and failed to maximize shareholder value and that the
Company, AMB, New Pumpkin, Upper Pumpkin, Pumpkin and AMB LP aided
and abetted the breaches of those fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff
in this action seeks among other relief to (i) enjoin,
preliminarily and permanently, the Merger, (ii) rescind the Merger
in the event it is consummated or award rescissory damages, (iii)
direct the defendants to account to plaintiff for all damages,
profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of their
breaches of fiduciary duties, and (iv) award plaintiff the costs
of this action.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions.

ProLogis is a self-administered and self-managed Real Estate
Investment Trust that owns, operates and develops real estate
properties, primarily industrial properties, in North America,
Europe and Asia, directly and through its unconsolidated
investees.


RAYTHEON: Appeals Court Rejects Class Action Over Defense Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Douglas, writing for News Channel 8, reports that a federal
appeals court has rejected a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
hundreds of property owners living near the shuttered Raytheon
defense plant in St. Petersburg.

The suit now goes back to the district court level in Tampa.

Raytheon is responsible for cleaning up industrial waste that has
spread through groundwater up to half a mile from the plant.
Those toxic chemicals have tainted dozens of private irrigation
wells and caused property values in the adjacent Azalea
neighborhood and other nearby residential areas to plummet.

One of the lawyers representing property owners in the class
action litigation said the appeals court ruling is by no means a
death blow to the case.

"This is only a temporary delay to the progress of the case," said
attorney Joseph Saunders.

Raytheon's company spokesman Jon Kasle said the ruling was
positive.

"Raytheon is pleased with the ruling and will continue to defend
the merits of our position vigorously.  The company remains
focused on executing its ongoing remediation activities,"
Mr. Kasle said.

When the district court initially certified the class action in
October 2009, Mr. Kasle noted the property owners "had already
abandoned claims of health risk, vapor intrusion and medical
monitoring," in the case.

Raytheon and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
have known about the underground pollution since 1991, but most
residents were unaware it was spreading under their homes and
contaminating their irrigation wells until a News Channel 8
investigation uncovered the problem in April 2008.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling handed down on March 9
says Federal District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington "erred in
granting class certification prematurely."

The appeals court said it overturned Covington because she did not
provide enough evidence to support the credentials and conclusions
of an expert witness who testified on behalf of property owners.

That expert's testimony directly conflicted with another expert
hired by Raytheon.

The experts differed sharply in their proposed methods of
calculating the impact of the pollution on property values, and
the court said Covington erred by not declaring a "proverbial, yet
tentative winner" in her class certification order.

The higher court ruling basically sends the case back Tampa for
further action, but does not throw out the lawsuit altogether.
"We express no opinion as to whether class certification is or is
not appropriate in this case," the ruling concludes.

Originally, the case was supposed to go to trial this month, but
the pending appeals court ruling put it on hold for more than a
year. Saunders said it is now up to judge Covington to decide on a
course of action.  He said she could simply re-write the
certification order in light of the appeals court's comments, or
call for a hearing so both sides of the case can offer opinions on
how to proceed.

After decades of delays and finger pointing between Raytheon and
state regulators, the company has begun the first steps in
cleaning up the highest concentration of chemicals located under
its plant, but the state environmental protection department still
hasn't approved the final plan for ridding the neighborhood of
lesser concentrations of the underground plume.

Raytheon has said it may take 70 years or more to completely clean
up the toxic waste, but most of the work will end much sooner than
that.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend 2009 Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit originally filed
February 2009, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for its
February 2008 public offering of common stock.  An additional
purported securities class action lawsuit containing similar
allegations was subsequently filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on February 20,
2009. By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits
were consolidated into a single action. On June 9, 2009, the Court
issued an order naming the Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as
lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2009. On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint
on January 27, 2010. The lawsuit alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the Company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial
of its product candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788). The
plaintiff sought damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of their
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between December 13, 2007
and February 9, 2009, including purchasers in the Stock Offering.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 16, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On September 22, 2010,
plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will not
amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final
judgment. On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed
judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the
defendants. On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing
the action. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 15,
2010, appealing the district court's order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The
plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23, 2011. The
Company's opposition brief is due on or before March 25, 2011.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intend
to defend the lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend
upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is
necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this suit, and the Company
may not prevail. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is
time-consuming for the Company's management and detracts from its
ability to fully focus its internal resources on its business
activities. In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal
fees and costs in connection with the litigation. The Company is
not currently able to estimate the possible cost to it from this
matter, and it cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve
this matter or the possible amount of any damages that it may be
required to pay. The Company has not established any reserves for
any potential liability relating to this lawsuit. It is possible
that the Company could, in the future, incur judgments or enter
into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision
adverse to the Company's interests on this action could result in
the payment of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could
have a material adverse effect on its cash flow, results of
operations and financial position. In addition, the uncertainty of
the currently pending litigation could lead to increased
volatility in the Company's stock price.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory
and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The company's
research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways and related
targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  Rigel has
collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and market
its product candidates.  The company has internal product
development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such
as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as well
as partnered product development programs relating to asthma and
cancer.


SAVE MY HOME: Homeowners File Class Action Over Upfront Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gearty and Lore Croghan, writing for Daily News, report
that struggling homeowners scammed out of thousands of hard-earned
dollars by so-called "loan modification" companies are fighting
back.

A class-action suit filed on March 9 says homeowners trying to
avoid foreclosure paid illegal upfront fees to some Long Island
firms that did little or nothing to lower their mortgages.

Filed on behalf of seven local plaintiffs who lost more than
$21,000 to a Garden City company called Save My Home, the suit
seeks restitution for hundreds of victims.  Six of the plaintiffs
are from poor neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn.

"This case exemplifies the destructive effect that the for-profit
loan modification industry has had on low- and middle-income
homeowners," said lawyer Eunice Rho of the Lawyers Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, who filed the suit along with the Davis
Polk & Wardwell law firm.  The suit claims Save My Home violated a
new law barring anyone negotiating for a mortgage reduction from
charging upfront fees.

In April 2009, Save My Home told Gul Magsood, a 66-year-old coffee
vendor, it would chop the monthly mortgage payments on his Queens
home from $2,300 to $1,500.  He paid $3,718 up front to the firm,
which then changed its name to Express Home Solutions while the
modification request was in the works.

Last fall, Mr. Magsood said Express Home's owner, David Gotterup,
demanded more money if he wanted the company to submit his
documents to the bank.  The bank told him his application was
already complete.  Last month, the modification was denied.

"They took my money and said they would get me a loan modification
and guaranteed that I would get a loan modification," said
Mr. Magsood.

"You know how hard I have to work to make this money?"

Save My Home and Mr. Gotterup could not be reached for comment.

In 2009, Mr. Gotterup -- operating under the name Express
Modifications -- agreed to pay $32,300 and stop doing business in
Massachusetts after being sued by that state's attorney general.

Meanwhile, city officials on March 9 also warned New Yorkers
against being suckered by fraudulent debt settlement companies out
to make a quick buck.

City Consumer Affairs Commissioner Jonathan Mintz urged New
Yorkers with debt problems to call 311 to arrange free counseling
at one of the city's 20 Financial Empowerment Centers.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Four Hawaii Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., remains a defendant in four
lawsuits pending in Hawaii, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court:

   Hawaii Case 1 -- Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
                    Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11;

   Hawaii Case 2 -- Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson
                    Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood
                    Treating Co., LTD., Hawaii Case
                    No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM;

   Hawaii Case 3 -- North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson
                    Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal
                    Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM; and

   Hawaii Case 4 -- Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
                    and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc.
                    et al. v Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et
                    al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08.

Hawaii Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Hawaii Cases 2 and
3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Hawaii Case 4 was filed
on August 19, 2009.  The Hawaii Cases all relate to alleged
premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products
installed in buildings in a housing development known as Ocean
Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing property damage.
Hawaii Case 1 is a putative class action brought by the owners of
allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.  Hawaii Case 1 was
originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko
Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-
1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new
representative plaintiff.  Hawaii Case 2 is an action by the
builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company,
claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Hawaii Case 3 is a
subrogation action brought by the insurance company for the
builders and developers against the Company claiming the insurance
company expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Hawaii Case 4, like Hawaii Case 1, is a
putative class action brought by owners of allegedly affected
Ocean Pointe homes.  In Hawaii Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the
developer of the Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third
party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for
which Haseko may be liable are actually the fault of the Company.
None of the Hawaii Cases alleges a specific amount of damages
sought, although each of the Hawaii Cases seeks compensatory
damages, and Hawaii Case 1 seeks punitive damages.

The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Hawaii Cases, including, among other
things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any
problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the
responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors
and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the
amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if
needed.  At this time, the Company said the likelihood that it
will be found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered
and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown.  Based on
facts currently known to the Company, the Company believes that
all or part of the claims alleged in the Hawaii Cases may be
covered by its insurance policies.  The Company intends to defend
itself vigorously in connection with the Hawaii Cases.


SOLVAY PHARMA: Women's Health Organizations Awarded $8.9MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Sobol, a partner with the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announces that U.S.
District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle on March 8 awarded $8.9
million to 12 leading organizations, universities, and charities
devoted to promoting women's health and well-being across the
nation.

The awards complete the distribution of $8.9 million in residual
funds of the $16.5 million settlement brought on behalf of
plaintiffs and class members represented by Mr. Sobol and Lieff
Cabraser, along with the Minneapolis, Minnesota law firm,
Gustafson Gluek, against drug manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.  The consumer protection lawsuit was brought by purchasers of
the hormone replacement drug Estratest who charged that Solvay
deceptively marketed and falsely advertised Estratest.  After
payment to class members who submit timely claims, here $7.5
million was paid to class members, a court may distribute any
residue funds to nonprofit and charitable organizations whose work
serves the underlying objectives of the lawsuit.

"In a time of strained resources for public and non-profit
organizations, [Wednes]day's decision will provide substantial
financial assistance for renown organizations and important
programs nationwide and in the Bay Area that are dedicated to
improving the health and well-being of women and their families.
After all, it was women who purchased Estratest for treatment of
symptoms of menopause," stated Mr. Sobol.

Sixty percent of the residue funds was awarded, in the amount of
$1.066 million each, to support programs and activities related to
women's health concerns at the Mayo Clinic and four university
medical schools, University of California, San Francisco, the
University of Minnesota, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and
Meharry Medical College.

"Since its establishment in 2001, the UCSF Women's Health Clinical
Research Center has greatly increased multidisciplinary clinical
and translational research advancing women's health across the
lifespan.  We greatly appreciate the continued support and will
continue to grow collaborative research programs that improve the
lives of women" said Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, founder and co-
director of the UCSF WHCRC.

The other 40% of the residue funds were divided equally, in the
amount of $592,277, among six non-profit groups who are either
leading organizations in the United States dedicated to the study
and treatment of menopausal symptoms, or organizations that
promote the health and welfare of women and children.  These
organizations are the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), the
Hormone Foundation, Menopause Alliance, Sojourner Project, Safe
Haven Family Shelter, and the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention
Center.  Finally, the Court awarded $100,000 to the Minnesota
Chapter of the Federal Bar Association's The Pro Se Project, whose
purpose is to provide pro se representation to civil litigants in
the District of Minnesota.

                Information on the Award Recipients

University of Minnesota, Deborah E. Powell Center for Women's
Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota

The purpose of the Deborah E. Powell Center for Women's Health --
http://www.wmhealth.umn.edu/-- is to cultivate research
partnerships that have the ability to impact the health of women
and their communities.  Its notable efforts include an Annual
Women's Health Research Conference, the "Building
Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Program," and
the Minnesota Women's Healthy Heart Project (MWHHP) that offers
cardiovascular screening for immigrant and minority women over the
age of 18.  The MWHHP aims to increase access to cardiovascular
screening for women who experience health disparities because the
programs currently in place in the area are not adequately
reaching these communities.

                 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York

The Mayo Clinic --  http://www.mayoclinic.org/endocrinology/-- is
a not-for-profit organization and is the first and largest
integrated group health practice in the world.  It has more than
3,600 physicians and scientists and 50,000 allied staff who care
for half a million patients annually.  The Mayo Clinic has strong
research programs relevant to menopause within the discipline of
endocrinology.  Since 1995, the Endocrinology Department at Mayo
Clinic has been designated as best in the nation in the objective
ranking of U.S. Best Hospitals published annually by U.S. News and
World Report.

               Vanderbilt University Medical Center
                       Nashville, Tennessee

Vanderbilt University Medical Center --
http://www.vanderbilthealth.com/womenshealth/-- is a national
leader in research to enhance quality of care, build systems of
care, and improve health outcomes for women.  With senior
investigators from the Institute for Medicine and Public Health,
Vanderbilt proposes to design and conduct research to test
practical and cost-effective methods to promote appropriate
provision of care for osteoporosis to those with fragility
fractures and to eliminate barriers for women to receive
osteoporosis treatment.  Vanderbilt's proposal to conduct research
into the provision of care for osteoporosis will have a direct
effect on the health outcomes of postmenopausal women.

"Vanderbilt University Medical Center is pleased to be a recipient
of this residual settlement which will be used for research to
improve the health and well-being of post-menopausal women.  These
funds will be used initially in the area of osteoporosis research,
allowing Vanderbilt to positively impact the lives of women across
the country," said John Howser, director, Office of News &
Communications, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

                     Meharry Medical College,
                Center for Women's Health Research
                       Nashville, Tennessee

Meharry Medical College --
http://www.mmc.edu/research/centers/cwhr/index.html-- exists to
improve the health and health care of minority and underserved
communities by offering excellent education and training programs
in the health sciences; placing special emphasis on providing
opportunities to people of color and individuals from
disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race or ethnicity;
delivering high quality health services; and conducting research
that fosters the elimination of health disparities.  The
investigators at the Center for Women's Health Research have been
involved with studies evaluating low-dose hormone therapies for
menopausal women and are currently conducting multiple studies
examining breast health, uterine fibroid disease and the
development of a microbicide to prevent the spread of HIV.

"On behalf of Meharry Medical College, we are grateful for this
significant and thoughtful donation to the Center for Women's
Health Research (CWHR) at Meharry.  It will allow us to continue
our important work in understanding the challenges faced by
diverse women as they transition through to menopause," said
Valerie Montgomery-Rice, M.D., Executive Director, Center for
Women's Health Research.

              University of California, San Francisco
              Women's Health Clinical Research Center
                     San Francisco, California

The Women's Health Clinical Research Center --
http://whcrc.ucsf.edu/-- was established in 2001 and is a major
component of The National Center of Excellence in Women's Health
at the University of California, San Francisco.  The Research
Center provides a vibrant and growing focus for clinical research
activities and significantly strengthens clinical and teaching
programs in women's health.  The department's co-director is an
international expert on menopause and the risks and benefits of
postmenopausal hormone therapy.  Other researchers at the Research
Center are exploring the ways that appropriate screening,
prevention, and treatment of disease differ by sex.  One special
focus of investigation is how aging affects women and their
quality of life.

                 North American Menopause Society

The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) --
http://www.menopause.org/--  is the country's leading nonprofit
organization dedicated to promoting the health and quality of life
of women through an understanding of menopause.  NAMS attempts to
stimulate, recommend, recognize, and support research on
physiologic, medical, genetic, psychosocial, ethnic, and cultural
aspects of menopause and its translation into clinical practice.
NAMS promotes the exchange of multidisciplinary scientific
knowledge of menopause through their "Annual Scientific Meeting"
and the journal Menopause.

                      The Hormone Foundation

The Hormone Foundation -- http://www.hormone.org/-- is an
educational affiliate of The Endocrine Society, which focuses on
hormone-related health information for the public, physicians,
allied health professionals, and the media.  The Hormone
Foundation promotes prevention, treatment and cure of hormone-
related conditions through outreach and education.  The Hormone
Foundation works directly with The Endocrine Society to translate
science for the benefits of patients and to raise general
awareness about emerging system diseases.

              Menopause Alliance, New York, New York

Menopause Alliance -- http://www.menopausealliance.org/-- is an
independent, nonprofit, global women's health initiative created
to address the many issues that affect women as they enter midlife
and beyond.  Menopause Alliance acts as a catalyst to stimulate an
exchange of dialogue among key stakeholders in the field of
menopause by incorporating the thoughts and ideas of consumers,
patients, and healthcare providers.  It uses this integrated
approach in an attempt to provide comprehensive, practical, and
unbiased information about women's health and total well-being.

             Sojourner Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sojourner's mission -- is to provide safe shelter for women and
children, as well as advocacy and education for individuals and
communities victimized by domestic violence.  Sojourner's work
empowers battered women, promotes healthy communities and living,
and seeks to eliminate domestic violence.  In addition to its
advocacy work, Sojourner has established Sojourner Shelter, which
provides a secure and confidential emergency residence for women
and children who are unsafe in their own homes due to violence and
abuse.

          Safe Haven Family Shelter, Nashville, Tennessee

The Safe Haven Family Shelter (SHFS) -- http://www.safehaven.org/
-- provides shelter and transitional services that empower
homeless families with children to achieve lasting self-
sufficiency.  SHFA's comprehensive program provides the education
and support necessary for families to return into the community
with stable employment and secured housing.  Families receive
support in the following areas: job readiness, financial literacy
and application, life skills, individual/group therapy sessions
for parents and children.  Currently SHFA holds an 84% success
rate of families graduating with secured employment and housing.

Joyce Lavery, Executive Director of Safe Haven Family Shelter,
stated "This unexpected gift to Safe Haven Family Shelter could
not be more timely and we are extremely grateful for this
opportunity to further serve our community and its most vulnerable
families -- homeless families with children.  The over 30%
increase in family homelessness since 2009 calls us to expand our
shelter to housing capacity through capital and other
improvements.  Our shelter, which is over twenty years old, is in
great need of renovation and expansion along with our transitional
and other housing options and this gift allows us to begin our
campaign now."

            San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center
                     San Francisco, California

The San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center (SFCAPC) --
http://www.sfcapc.org/-- is a nonprofit agency dedicated to the
prevention of child abuse and neglect and the promotion of healthy
families.  SFCAPC has a Family Support Center that provides a
number of services, including a 24-hour parent stress hotline that
handles more than 14,000 calls per year, and a parent drop-in
center that allows parents to look for a job, look for housing,
receive counseling or crisis intervention, and other services
without an appointment.  More than half of the parents served by
SFCAPC are single parents, and 83% are women.

"This award will have a profound impact in our community to ensure
that every child is safe and protected and grows up in a loving
and nurturing family," said Katie Albright, Executive Director of
the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.
We are among the largest law firms in the United States that only
represent plaintiffs.

A strong, principled sense of social responsibility drives us.
Since our founding in 1972, we have been committed to achieving
justice for investors, consumers, employees, patients, and small
business owners, promoting safer products and fair competition,
protecting our environment, and remedying violations of the civil
rights of citizens worldwide.  Described by The American Lawyer as
"one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," our comprehensive
and diverse practice is unique among plaintiffs' law firms.

Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  We are one
of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive
this honor for the last eight consecutive years.

Gustafson Gluek PLLC is a Minneapolis law firm with a national
practice, with emphasis in antitrust, consumer protection and
class action litigation.  The firm has over 80 years of experience
in the areas of antitrust, consumer protection and class action
litigation, as well as in the areas of intellectual property
litigation involving patents, trademarks and trade dress, complex
business litigation, and securities fraud litigation.

Gustafson Gluek PLLC practices before state and federal courts
throughout the country and works with and opposes some of the
nation's largest companies and law firms.  The firm was formed in
May 2003.

Contact: Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Telephone: (415) 956-1000

              - and -

         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. continues to defend itself against a class
action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina.

On July 7, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed by
the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated.  The suit is a class
action on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 7, 2007 and Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and
directors of the company.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the company issued press
releases and made public statements during the class period that
were materially false and misleading.  The complaint also names
certain company officers as defendants and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Founded in 1899, Sonoco Products Co. --
http://http://www.sonoco.com/-- is a $3.6 billion global
manufacturer of industrial and consumer products and provider of
packaging services, with more than 300 operations in 35 countries,
serving customers in some 85 nations.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Trial in Delaware Class Suit Expected June 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated class action complaint against Southern
Copper Corporation in Delaware is expected to commence in June
this year, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
On January 31, 2005, the three actions -- Lemon Bay, LLP v.
American Mining-Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 961-N,
Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern Peru
Copper Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 969-N, and James Sousa
v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 978-
N -- were consolidated into one action captioned In re Southern
Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol.
Civil Action No. 961 -N; the complaint filed by Lemon Bay was
designated as the operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.
The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Company and its common stockholders; the defendants in the
consolidated action are AMC, German Larrea Mota-Velasco, Genaro
Larrea Mota-Velasco, Oscar Gonzalez Rocha, Emilio Carrillo Gamboa,
Jaime Fernando Collazo Gonzalez, Xavier Garcia de Quevedo Topete,
Armando Ortega Gomez and Juan Rebolledo Gout (the AMC Defendants),
Carlos Ruiz Sacristan, Harold S. Handelsman, Gilberto Perezalonso
Cifuentes, and Luis Miguel Palomino Bonilla (the Special Committee
Defendants).  The consolidated complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Transaction was the result of breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Company's directors and was not entirely
fair to the Company and its minority stockholders.  Fact discovery
closed in early 2010, and expert discovery closed on June 18,
2010.  On June 30, 2010, the plaintiff moved for partial summary
judgment.  On August 10, 2010, the AMC Defendants and the Special
Committee Defendants filed separate cross-motions for summary
judgment.  On December 21, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiff's
and the AMC Defendants' motions for summary judgment and granted
the Special Committee Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the Special Committee Defendants from the action.  As
of February 25, [2011], the case is expected to go to trial in
June 2011.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary and
permanent injunction to enjoin the Transaction, the award of
damages to the plaintiff and the class, and other relief that the
court deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs.  The defendants believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and are vigorously defending against the action.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Motion to Amend Derivative Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to amend a complaint filed in a class action lawsuit
against Southern Copper Corporation in Delaware is pending,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Four purported class action derivative lawsuits have been filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System et al. v. SCC et al., Gary Martin et al. v. SCC
et al., Thomas Griffin et al. v. SCC et al., and Sheet Metal
Workers Pension Plan of Northern California et al. v. SCC et al.)
from August to October 2010 relating to the proposed combination
of the Company with American Mining-Corporation, the parent
company of Asarco.  The complaints name SCC, its current and
certain former directors, AMC and Grupo Mexico as defendants.  Two
of the actions also name Asarco as a defendant.  The actions
purport to be brought on behalf of the Company's common
stockholders.  A previously reported complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, City
of North Miami Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement
Plan et al. v. SCC et al., has been voluntarily dismissed.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed
transaction would result in breaches of fiduciary duties by the
defendants and is not entirely fair to the Company and its
minority stockholders.  The complaints seek, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the transaction,
the award of damages to the plaintiffs and the class, and other
relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.  On January 25, 2011, the
Oklahoma Firefighters and Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs filed an
amended and joint motion to consolidate and have Firefighters'
counsel appointed lead counsel.  Plaintiffs also moved to stay the
Martin and Griffin actions.  The Sheet Metal plaintiffs have
withdrawn their prior motion to consolidate in connection with the
new motion.

Firefighters' plaintiffs have also moved for leave to file an
amended complaint to add or supplement factual allegations
concerning the summary judgment ruling in the Lemon Bay action.
Resolution of the motion is still pending.

The defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
are vigorously defending against the actions.


SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 6,000 Gel-Fuel Wood Fireplaces
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Southern Enterprises Inc., of Coppell, Texas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,000 Colin Cowie Gel-Fuel Wood
Fireplaces.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Heat from the operating unit causes the plastic mounting screws to
deform causing the unit to fall from the wall, posing a fall and
fire hazard.

SEI has received reports of 21 incidents of the product detaching
from wall and falling, heat damage, and/or fire.  Two reports of
personal injuries, including a knee injury and broken toes.

This recall involves Colin Cowie dual-positioning, wood wall-
mount, gel-fuel fireplace with item No. 955-074.  The wooden wall
mount fireplace has an espresso-colored finish with copper, silver
or antique gold finished metal trim.  It may be hung in a
horizontal or vertical position.  This recall involves units
manufactured in July 2010.  Lot number SEI/07/001 can be found on
a label on the rear of the unit in the upper right hand corner
when horizontal.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11164.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Home Shopping Network between October and November 2010 for about
$250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
call SEI for a corrective retro fit kit that will be sent free of
charge.  For additional information, contact SEI at (877) 858-4959
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.seidal.com/retrofit/


STANLEY SECURITY: Recalls 63,100 6K and 7KC series Door Locksets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Stanley Security Solutions Inc., of Indianapolis, Ind., announced
a voluntary recall of about 63,100 6K and 7KC series door
locksets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The latches can fail and the door cannot be unlocked from the
inside, posing an entrapment hazard.  This failure could lead to
the inability to vacate a location in an emergency.

Stanley Security Solutions has received five reports of the
latches failing. One entrapment has been reported.  No injuries
reported.

The recalled latches are in 6K and 7KC series medium Duty
Locksets.  These locksets have a brass or stainless steel finish
and may have the word "BEST" embossed on the key core.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11725.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
Nationwide to end users through either the firm's network of
branches or independent dealers from April 2010 through January
2011 for between about $80 and $260.

Consumers should contact Stanley Security Solutions to schedule an
appointment to have the latches replaced free of charge.  For
additional information, contact Stanley Security Solutions' toll-
free at (888) 312-8875 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.stanleysecuritysolutions.com/


STATE STREET: ERISA Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed against State Street
Corporation over benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act has been dismissed, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Participants in certain lending funds have commenced putative
class actions on behalf of all investors in the lending funds that
are benefit plans subject to ERISA.  The class actions allege,
among other things, failure to exercise prudence in the management
of the collateral pools and breach of the governing instruments in
connection with the Company's imposition of restrictions on
redemptions and seek both damages and injunctive relief, and
breaches of ERISA with respect to compensation paid to the Company
for the operation of the securities lending program on behalf of
State Street Global Advisors lending funds.

The Company is also currently defending a putative ERISA class
action by investors in unregistered SSgA-managed funds which
challenges the division of the Company's securities lending-
related revenue between the SSgA lending funds and State Street in
its role as lending agent.  Another putative ERISA class action
relating to unregistered funds was voluntarily dismissed in
February 2011.


STATE STREET: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Forex Services
------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues defend itself from lawsuits
related to its foreign exchange services, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Attorney General of the State of California has commenced an
action under the California False Claims Act and California
Business and Professional Code related to services State Street
provides to California state pension plans.  The California
Attorney General asserts that the pricing of certain foreign
exchange transactions for these pension plans was governed by the
custody contracts for these plans and that the Company's pricing
was not consistent with the terms of those contracts and related
disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street made
false claims and engaged in unfair competition.  The Attorney
General asserts actual damages of $56 million for periods from
2001 to 2007 and seeks additional penalties.  The Company provides
custody and principal foreign exchange services to government
pension plans in other jurisdictions, and attorneys general from a
number of these other jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney's
offices, have requested information or issued subpoenas in
connection with inquiries into the Company's foreign exchange
pricing.  In October 2010, the Company entered into a $12 million
settlement with the State of Washington.  This settlement resolves
a contract dispute related to the manner in which the Company
priced some foreign exchange transactions during State Street's
ten-year relationship with the State of Washington that ended in
2007.  The Company's contractual obligations to the State of
Washington were significantly different from those presented in
ongoing litigation in California.  In addition, the Company is
responding to information requests from other clients with respect
to the State Street's foreign exchange services.  Two clients have
commenced litigation against the Company, including a putative
class action filed in February 2011, in federal court in Boston
that seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages, on
behalf of all custodial clients that executed foreign exchange
transactions through State Street.  The putative class action
alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street
executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and
deceptive practice and a breach of the duty of loyalty.


STATE STREET: Three Shareholder-Related Suits Pending in Boston
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to face three class action
lawsuits in Boston, according to the Company's February 28, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Three shareholder-related class action complaints are currently
pending in federal court in Boston.  One complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of State Street shareholders.  The two other
complaints purport to be brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who
invested in the program's State Street common stock investment
option.  The complaints variously allege violations of the federal
securities laws and ERISA in connection with the Company's foreign
exchange trading business, investment securities portfolio and
asset-backed commercial paper conduit program.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Texas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Chemicals, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal in a
class action lawsuit pending in a Texas court, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 21, 2007, three retired employees of Sterling Fibers,
Inc., one of the Company's former subsidiaries, sued the Company,
several of its benefit plans and the plan administrators for those
plans in a class action suit, filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Case No. H-
07-0625). The plaintiffs allege that the Company was not permitted
to increase its premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in an asset purchase agreement between the
Company, Sterling Fibers, Inc. and Cytec Industries Inc. and
certain of its affiliates, or Cytec, that governed the purchase by
Sterling Fibers, Inc. of Cytec's acrylic fibers business in 1997.
During the Company's bankruptcy case in 2002, the Company and
Sterling Fibers, Inc. specifically rejected this asset purchase
agreement and the bankruptcy court approved that rejection. The
plaintiffs claimed that the Company violated the terms of its
benefit plans, breached fiduciary duties governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and failed to comply with sections
of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with retiree benefits, and sought
damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
A trial for this matter was held during the second week of
November 2009. On July 1, 2010, the judge ruled for the Company on
the merits and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal on July 16, 2010. Briefing for this
appeal is scheduled to be completed in February 2011 and the
Company does not expect oral arguments for the appeal. The Company
is vigorously seeking affirmation of the trial judge's rulings.
the Company is unable to state at this time if a loss is probable
or remote and are unable to determine the possible range of loss
related to this matter, if any.

Headquartered in Houston Texas, Sterling is a producer of selected
petrochemicals used to manufacture a wide array of consumer goods
and industrial products throughout the world.  The company's
primary products are currently acetic acid and plasticizers.


STEVE MADDEN: "Tahvilian" Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
No updates were reported by Steve Madden, Ltd., in its
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010,
on the class action complaint it is facing in California alleging
labor law violations.

On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No.
BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws.  The
parties submitted the dispute to private mediation and, on
August 31, 2010, reached a settlement on all claims.  The court
has granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The claims
administrator for the class action is currently preparing to send
a notice of the settlement to all class members.  Once all of the
class members' claims have been received and approved, the
settlement will be submitted to the court for final approval.
Based on the proposed settlement, the Company increased its
reserve for this claim from $1 million to $2.75 million in the
third quarter of 2010.

Steven Madden and its subsidiaries design, source, market and sell
fashion-forward footwear for women, men and children.


SUNSATIONS INC: Recalls 3,600 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunsations Inc., of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,600 Children's hooded sweatshirts with
drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hooded sweatshirts have drawstrings through the hood which can
pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children.  In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines, which were incorporated
into an industry voluntary standard in 1997, to help prevent
children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and
waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's and juniors hooded sweatshirts
sold in sizes small, medium and large that can fit children in a
large range of sizes from 2T through 12. "Virginia Beach," "Ocean
City," "Nags Head" or "Kill Devil Hills" are printed on the front.
The following style and items numbers are included in the recall
and are printed on a tag sewn into the sweatshirt's neck: BL200
(item #16692) in black, style BL300 (item #16693) in brown and
style 292 (item #20221) which come in navy blue, pink and light
blue.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11163.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Pakistan and sold
through Sunsations stores in Virginia Beach, Va; Ocean City, Md;
and Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills, N.C. from May 2009 through
November 2010 for between $10 and $25.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirt to
Sunsations for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Sunsations at (800) 786-9044 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sunsationsusa.com/or email the firm at
info@sunsationsusa.com


TELESP HOLDING: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit involving the quality of
Telesp Holding Co.'s services remains pending, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Public Prosecutor Office of the State of Sao Paulo commenced a
class action claiming moral and property damages suffered by all
consumers of telecommunications services from 2004 to 2009 due to
the bad quality of services and failures of the communications
system. The public Prosecutor Office suggested that the
indemnification to be paid should be R$1 billion. The decision
handed down on April 20, 2010, imposes the payment of
indemnification for damages caused to all consumers who have filed
a suit for such. Conversely, in the event that the number of
consumers claiming to the award is not in line with the gravity of
their damages, after the lapsing of one year, the judge determined
that the amount of R$60 million be deposited in the Special
Expenses Fund to Recover Natural Rights Damages.  It is not
possible to estimate the number of consumers who will individually
file suits nor the amounts claimed thereby. The Company filed an
appeal on the merit of the case. The judgment effects are in
abeyance. No amount has been assigned to the possible likelihood
of an unfavorable outcome in connection with this action, since in
the case of loss, estimating the corresponding amount payable by
the Company is not practicable at this time. Likewise,
establishing a provision for contingency equivalent to the amount
sought is not possible.

Telesp Holding Co., the Brazilian fixed-line and broadband arm of
Spanish telecom group Telefonica (NYSE:TEF).


TOWN OF WEST SILOAM SPRINGS: Court System "Unconstitutional"
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria D'Angelo at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action claims West Siloam Springs runs its city
court by having the judge simultaneously serve as prosecutor.  Six
named plaintiffs say they were injured by the system -- which, by
the way, is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs, all Oklahomans, sued the town, its mayor and City
Council.  They also object that the city judge, "whose salary is
dependent upon the income generated by the Court," to negotiate
defendants' fines and penalties.

They claim, "the conduct and operation of the Municipal Court of
the Town of West Siloam Springs, Oklahoma violates the separation
of powers doctrine relating to fairness allowing the Municipal
Judge to call and examine witnesses on behalf of both the Town of
West Siloam Springs and the State and the Defendants, literally
acting as both judge and prosecutor."

And that ain't all, the class claims: "Additionally, the defendant
Town of West Siloam Springs, Oklahoma further allows its Municipal
Judge, whose salary is dependent upon the income generated by the
Court, to resolve its pending cases with defendants who appear
before its tribunal by negotiating fines and penalties, including
cost collected by the Court, creating a union of investigative and
judicial duties resulting in an unfair tribunal contrary to State
and Federal constitutional due process requirements and in
violation of the separation of powers doctrine."

The plaintiffs seek damages and injunction restraining the town
from running its "constitutionally infirm" Municipal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Deaton, et al. v. Carr, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-000137 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/10/Siloam.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William R. Mayo, Esq.
          MAYO LAW OFFICES
          1831 East 71st Street
          Tulsa, OK 74146
          Telephone: (877) 454-9323
          E-mail: wmayo@mayolawoffices.com


TULANE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsterilized Endoscope
--------------------------------------------------------------
WDSU.com reports that patients have filed a class-action lawsuit
against Tulane Medical Center after the hospital administration
admitted that an endoscope used to perform procedures like a
colonoscopy was not properly sterilized for several months.

According to a statement from attorney Ron Austin and a letter to
Tulane patients, the device was not properly sterilized between
Oct. 7 and Dec. 1.  The lawsuit, filed last month, claims the
hospital exposed patients to diseases like hepatitis B and C, as
well as HIV.

"All of the affected patients will require medical monitoring for
infectious disease," Mr. Austin said in a statement.  "Many of
them are fearful of coming forward due to privacy concerns.
Accordingly, the class action petition was filed using anonymous
names for two clients, John and Jane Doe."

The lawsuit claims the hospital "negligently exposed him (John
Doe) to infectious diseases," and it seeks unspecified damages for
the man and his wife, who was also exposed to diseases due to
sexual activity with her husband.

The hospital claims in its letter to patients that the
sterilization process involves several steps, and in one of those
steps, the endoscope was not being disinfected at the proper
temperature.

"Since endoscope processing uses multiple disinfecting steps, it
is the opinion of the experts we contacted that it is highly
unlikely that these conditions could be transmitted," hospital CEO
Robert Lynch said in the letter.

The hospital is offering free disease testing for all affected
patients.

"Patient safety is of paramount importance to us.  We regret this
occurred and have taken steps to assure that this problem does not
happen again," Mr. Lynch said.

Tulane released a statement on March 10 reiterating that health
officials believe the risk of infection is "minimal to non-
existent."

The hospital said a total of 360 patients were affected, and it is
contacting them to offer free testing and counseling services.

A call line has been established for patients to call (504) 988-
1155 regarding any concerns that they may have.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeal From Right-of-Way Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by plaintiffs in a dismissed putative class action
lawsuit against Tucson Electric Power Co. over right of way
matters is pending, according to Unisource Energy Corp.'s March 1,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy.

Tucson Electric Power Company was a defendant in a class action
filed in February 2009, in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the rights of way for
defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly
granted and that the compensation paid for the rights of way was
inadequate.  The plaintiffs were requesting, among other things,
that the transmission lines on these lands be removed.  In June
2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit on procedural grounds.  In March 2010, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final
judgment dismissing the case in April 2010.  The plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in May
2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant the rights of way that
were the subject of the now-dismissed complaint.  In June 2010,
the BIA found that the Notice of Appeal failed to meet the minimum
filing requirements.  In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new
Notices of Appeal concerning the same rights of way.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power
Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium
Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy
Development Company (UED).  The company conducts its business
through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric.  TEP is an
electric utility that provides electric service to the community
of Tucson, Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries,
UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric),
provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern
and Southern Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain
Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine
in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement
provides energy to UNS Electric.


UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company continues to defend class
action lawsuits relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, according to
the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits,
including actions seeking certification from the court to proceed
as a class action suit and actions filed by individual
policyholders, relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  As of
December 31, 2010, there were approximately 90 individual
policyholder cases pending and four class action cases pending.
These cases have been filed in Louisiana state courts and federal
district courts and involve, among other claims, disputes as to
the amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases, as well as
the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial
property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss
of use and business interruption.  Certain of these cases also
claim a breach of duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana
insurance claims-handling laws or regulations and involve claims
for punitive or exemplary damages.  Other cases claim that under
Louisiana's so-called "Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay
the total insured value of a home that is totally destroyed if any
portion of the damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the
principal cause of the loss was an excluded peril.  Other cases
challenge the scope or enforceability of the water damage
exclusion in the policies.

Several actions pending against various insurers, including the
Company, were consolidated for purposes of pre-trial discovery and
motion practice under the caption In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182 in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.  In August
2009, the federal trial court ruled in that case that
certification of policyholder claims as a class would be
inappropriate.  The Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the denial of class certification.  Federal court rulings
in that case are not binding on state courts, which do not have to
follow the federal court ruling on class certification.

Following an April 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court decision finding
that flood damage was clearly excluded from coverage, both state
and federal courts have been reviewing pending lawsuits seeking
class certification and other pending lawsuits in order to
expedite pre-trial discovery and to move the cases towards trial.
In 2010, the Company concluded 130 of the approximately 215
lawsuits that were pending at December 31, 2009.  Five new
lawsuits were filed in 2010 against the Company, alleging
entitlement to additional insurance recovery as a result of
Katrina-related damage.  The Company has asserted that these suits
were not timely filed and should be dismissed, but no court has
yet addressed the viability of these recently filed suits.
In July 2008, Lafayette Insurance Company participated in a
hearing in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, after which the court
entered an order certifying a class defined as all Lafayette
Insurance Company personal lines policyholders within an eight
parish area in and around New Orleans who sustained wind damage as
a result of Hurricane Katrina and whose claims were at least
partially denied or allegedly misadjusted.  The Company appealed
this order, and in a decision dated, November 30, 2010, the
Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that certification of the class was
improper and remanded the matter to the trial court for a
determination of the merits of the claims of individually
identified policyholders.  In light of this decision, the Company
believes it unlikely that class certification will be upheld in
any of the other suits seeking class relief.  As the claims of
potential class members will likely not be addressed in class
action litigation, the only recourse for policyholders
dissatisfied with their insurance claim adjustment will be through
litigation pursued by specifically named persons.  While the
Company believes that the allowable time for commencement of this
litigation has passed, this issue has not yet been definitively
decided by Louisiana courts, and it is possible that suits may
still be commenced that are not subject to dismissal as untimely.
The Company intends to continue to defend the cases related to
losses incurred as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.

The Company intends to continue to defend the cases related to
losses incurred as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.

United Fire & Casualty Company -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/
-- is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance and selling annuities.  It operates
in two business segments: property and casualty, and life
insurance.  The company's subsidiaries include United Fire and
United Life Insurance Company, Addison Insurance Company, United
Fire and Indemnity Company, United Fire Lloyds, and Texas General
Indemnity Compa


UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Mercer Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company continues to defend itself from
two class action lawsuits over its proposed merger plans,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in two lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey of Mercer County, Chancery Division, relating
to its proposed merger with Mercer Insurance Group, Inc.  Each of
the lawsuits was filed as a class action on behalf of all of
Mercer's stockholders and alleges, among other things, that the
consideration that stockholders will receive in connection with
the merger is inadequate, that Mercer's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the
merger agreement, and that the Company aided and abetted the
breach of fiduciary duty by Mercer's directors.  Each of the
complaints seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the merger from closing in
accordance with the agreed-upon terms.  The Company intends to
aggressively defend these cases.  While the Company believes that
the claims asserted against United Fire, Mercer, and its directors
are without merit, the Company, along with Mercer Insurance Group,
are pursuing resolution of the suits.  Resolution of the
litigation will remove the potential for delay in the shareholder
vote which may be sought by the plaintiffs and the possibility of
a consequential delay in the closing of the sale.

United Fire & Casualty Company -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/
-- is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance and selling annuities.  It operates
in two business segments: property and casualty, and life
insurance.  The company's subsidiaries include United Fire and
United Life Insurance Company, Addison Insurance Company, United
Fire and Indemnity Company, United Fire Lloyds, and Texas General
Indemnity Company.


WESTPAC: No Knowledge on True Costs of Overdraw Fees, Group Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Zappone, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
consumer activists say recent comments from Westpac and ANZ
suggest they don't know the underlying costs for overdrawn
accounts -- potentially embarrassing admissions as the banks fight
a class action suit on unfair fees.

Westpac chief Gail Kelly's earlier this week said on live
television that the bank's past overdraw fees were "completely
inappropriate".  The ANZ, meanwhile, argued in court it didn't
know the true underlying costs of fees and it would require 13
months of investigation to find out.

Consumer Action Law Centre director Nicole Rich said the comments
by Ms. Kelly suggest Westpac had no estimate of the cost on an
overdrawn account overdraw -- a key legal requirement in order to
lawfully charge customers.

"Gail Kelly's remarks suggest Westpac too may never have made a
genuine attempt to gauge its costs.  They just plucked a figure
out of the air -- which is why they were just completely
inappropriate in the past," said Ms Rich.

The country's big four banks have been at the center of widespread
complaint since the end of last year when they opted to raise
interest rates by more than the Reserve Bank even as they rang up
profits for 2010 of at least $20 billion.  NAB sought to distance
itself from the other three by eliminating many of its bank fees
earlier in the year, drawing attention to the industry's
practices.

Ms Kelly's comments came in answer to a question about who
benefits when Westpac charged $35 for an overdraw fee on ABC's Q &
A program.  She said the fees Westpac charged a "couple of years
ago . . . were, frankly, completely inappropriate but since then
those fees have materially been reduced across really the whole
industry."

Westpac later denied Ms. Kelly was describing the fees from a
legal or ethical point of view but rather from the experience of
customers.

"From Gail's perspective, cost recovery measures so out of
alignment with customers' expectations can fairly be described as
inappropriate," said Westpac spokeswoman Jane Counsel.  "That, of
course, is different from describing them as unlawful, which
Westpac and other banks strongly believe they were not".

13 months

The comments from Westpac come the same week ANZ argued in Federal
Court that it would take 13 months of investigation to learn the
underlying costs behind the fees they assess customers, as part of
its defense against a 27,000-person class action suit, seeking to
recover $50 million in fees paid over the past six years.

The ANZ case is considered a test case before law firm Maurice
Blackburn brings suits against 11 of the largest banks in
Australia, including National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank
and Westpac.  The total class action, with a record 200,000
plaintiffs signed up, is expected to seek $5 billion in fees paid
by consumers over the past six years.

CALC's Ms. Rich said, "ANZ has now admitted it does not know the
underlying cost and it would take 13 months for it to figure this
out."

"If this is true, it's unclear how the bank could say that it set
the fees as a genuine pre-estimate of its costs because it seems
it hasn't made any genuine attempt to figure these out in the
past," she said.

ANZ had no comment on the ongoing legal case.  The Australian
Bankers Association would not comment on the matter.

'Indefensible'

Choice banking reform director Richard Lloyd believes the comments
undercut their broader argument about the justification for the
fees.

"The Westpac admission is clearly going to undermine the defense
of banks that are in the courts at the moment," he said.  "The
sensible thing for the banks to do would be to stop defending the
indefensible."

The same would be true for ANZ's claim it will take a year to
figure out the true costs of the fees it charges, Mr. Lloyd said.
"I think it's extraordinary a business the size of ANZ can't tell
us why it costs so many dollars to inform their customers of their
overdrafts."

"If it's going to take the ANZ a year to figure that out then I
take that as an admission their charging structures are
indefensible," he said.


* Attorney Files P2P Class Actions in Different Courts
------------------------------------------------------
Nate Anderson, writing for Ars Technica, reports that most of the
attorneys who file mass P2P lawsuits do so in a single court.
Chicago family-law-turned-copyright attorney John Steele last week
broke that pattern and scored a hat trick by filing at least one
large-scale pornography lawsuit in each of Illinois' three federal
judicial districts: Northern, Central, and Southern.  But one
federal judge last week worried that Mr. Steele is running a
"fishing expedition."

Mr. Steele has run into some problems in Illinois' Northern
District, which includes Chicago; on March 9, Judge Milton Shadur
threw out one of Mr. Steele's lawsuits against 300 anonymous
defendants, berating Mr. Steele and saying, "I don't see any
justification at all for this action."

Mr. Steele hasn't been deterred; after all, there are plenty of
judges and plenty of courts, and not all of them will see things
Judge Shadur's way.

"The judges in our other cases have, for the most part, sided with
our clients and dismissed anonymous motions filed by non-parties,"
he told me.  "We expect to continue to have a majority of the
courts find in our favor and allow us to find out who is stealing
our client's content."

To that end, Mr. Steele has filed two of his recent cases in
entirely separate court districts.  The first was filed in the
Southern District, downstate near St. Louis.  Mr. Steele tried to
avoid the jurisdiction questions that have dogged these lawsuits
elsewhere, filing this case as a reverse class-action lawsuit
against everyone who illegally shared his client's pornography.

On March 8, the day before his run-in with Judge Shadur,
Mr. Steele filed a second class-action lawsuit in the Central
District, which includes the University of Illinois.  Mr. Steele
says he brought the case there because he "used geolocation
technology to trace the IP addresses of multiple Defendants to a
point of origin within Champaign, Illinois."

Of course, with 1,017 "John Doe" defendants, it's likely that the
case could have been brought just about anywhere, including
Chicago, where Mr. Steele has his offices.  But if Mr. Steele
hoped a change of venue might help his chances, Judge Harold Baker
disabused him of that notion within a day.  As Mr. Steele was
getting grilled by Judge Shadur back in Chicago on March 9,
Judge Baker looked at the class-action filing before him and
issued a sharply worded note.

Mr. Steele had asked for "expedited discovery," which would allow
him to get the necessary subpoenas more quickly and which could be
done without input from any defense lawyer.  Judge Baker called
the lawsuit a "novel case, which has turned Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
[the class action rule] on its head" and he worried that granting
Mr. Steele his subpoenas without hearing from the other side would
be unfair.  The judge instead wants an "adversarial proceeding
where questions or claims of privilege or protection could be
raised" before signing off on subpoenas, and he directed the court
clerk "to refuse to issue any subpoenas to plaintiff's counsel
until further order of the court."

The basic problem here is that the defendants are known only by IP
address, so there are no identified defendants who might contest
the discovery request.  In a similar case in Texas, the judge on
his own initiative invited the Electronic Frontier Foundation and
Public Citizen to get involved in the case and stand up for the
defendants' rights until such time as those defendants were
actually identified and could send their own counsel to court.
Shortly after this move, the Texas lawyer bringing the case
dismissed it, blaming the judge for allowing the public interest
groups to get involved.

Summing up his concerns, the judge concluded: "Plainly stated, the
court is concerned that the expedited ex parte discovery is a
fishing expedition by means of a perversion of the purpose and
intent of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23."


* Court-Approved Class Action Settlements Down in 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Ceniceros, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
the number of court-approved securities class action settlements
declined in 2010, sinking to the lowest number in more than 10
years, Cornerstone Research Inc. said in an annual report released
on March 10.

There were 86 court-approved settlements during 2010, a 15%
decline from 2009.  Since 2001, the number of cases settled peaked
at 119 during 2005, according to "Securities Class Action
Settlements 2010 Review and Analysis."

Cornerstone also found that the dollar value of all 2010
settlements dropped to $3.1 billion, down 17% from 2009.

The decline likely won't continue, however, and a difficult
economy may have helped reduce the number of approved settlements
in 2010, Cornerstone said.

"However, the more likely cause for this decline is a combination
of the substantial drop in the number of cases filed during 2006
. . . and the fact that to date, credit crisis cases have
generally taken longer to settle," the report states.  "Since the
number of case filings has been increasing since 2006 and credit
crisis cases are now becoming a much smaller population of filed
cases, the decline in the number of cases settled in 2010 is not
expected to persist."

The average dollar value of a settlement dropped slightly in 2010
to $36.3 million from $37.2 million the prior year.  That was due
to fewer "megasettlements," Cornerstone said.

But the median amount for cases settled in 2010 rose to $11.3
million, up 40% from $8 million in 2009.  The increase represents
the "largest percentage increase in the median settlement amount
in the last 10 years and is the first time during that same period
that the median settlement amount, even when adjusted for
inflation, exceeded $10 million," the report states.

Cornerstone also found that:

    * The percentage of settled cases involving remedy of a
corresponding Securities and Exchange Commission action prior to
the class action settlement increased to 30% in 2010 compared with
20% for cases settled through 2009.

    * Institutional investors again increased their participation
as lead plaintiffs, doing so in more than 67% of the 2010
settlements.

    * Allegations related to violations of generally accepted
accounting principles were included in about 70% of cases that
settled during 2010, up from 65% in 2009.

Washington-based Cornerstone Research in cooperation with Stanford
Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse provides
financial and economic analysis in litigation and regulatory
proceedings.  Its report can be found at
http://securities.stanford.edu


* SEC-Linked Class Action Settlements on the Rise, Report Shows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that settlements of
securities fraud lawsuits are increasingly tied to U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission cases, a trend likely to continue as the
agency increases enforcement activity, a new report shows.

Thirty percent of class-action settlements in 2010 involved cases
where the SEC had previously announced enforcement activity, up
from an average 20% in the previous 14 years, according to an
annual study by Cornerstone Research.

Laura Simmons, a business professor at the College of William &
Mary and co-author of the study, said the SEC's involvement
typically results in a 30 percent boost to the average settlement
size for investors.

"SEC enforcement activity gives investor plaintiffs extra
bargaining power," she said.  "There is no reason to believe SEC
enforcement activity will decline, and it should remain a 'plus'
factor to increase future settlement amounts."

Overall, the number of securities class-action settlements that
U.S. courts approved fell last year to 86, the fewest in more than
a decade, from 101 in 2009.

The total value of the settlements fell to $3.12 billion from
$3.79 billion, while the average size dipped to $36.3 million from
$37.6 million.

Cornerstone attributed the declines to a dearth of "mega-
settlements," those worth more than $100 million.

There were also no giant settlements such as the $7.2 billion
accord in 2006 for energy company Enron Corp, and $6.2 billion
accord a year earlier for phone company WorldCom Inc.

It typically takes four years to reach a settlement, Cornerstone
said.

According to the report, the largest approved settlement in 2010
was a $624 million accord with mortgage lender Countrywide
Financial Corp and its auditor, KPMG LLP.  Countrywide is now
owned by Bank of America Corp.

Ms. Simmons gave two reasons that settlements may grow in 2011 and
beyond.

First, she said many lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2009 that involved
large alleged losses tied to the financial crisis have yet to be
resolved.

Second, she said public pension funds are serving more often as
lead plaintiffs, and their involvement boosts the size of a
typical class-action settlement by 40%.


* UK Pension Funds See Securities Class Actions as Burdensome
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bow, writing for Professional Pensions, report that
pension funds would rather sell stock than take securities class
action because it is too costly and time-consuming, delegates
heard.

Securities litigation by shareholders is so burdensome it is
stopping institutional investors claiming back money they are
owed, with UK pension fund trustees saying costs prohibit
engagement.

Hadrian Trustees independent trustee director Roger Buttery said:
"It's fair to say that the investment committee has a sense of
frustration with the process because we feel we should be doing
more but we don't actually know how we can do it without actually
putting huge fees at risk on the pension scheme."

He added: "We've had conversations with various UK managers and
talked to them about responsible investment and the response you
get back is most of them tend to view that they would sell a share
holding at an early stage rather than take legal action."

A recent US Supreme Court decision meaning UK firms cannot bring
class actions on cross-listed stock in the US could mean more
securities class action in UK courtrooms, experts warned.

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross senior partner Marc Gross said:
"There was a period of time when millions were being left on the
table unclaimed by institutional investors.  That has been
changing but we're not certain in the UK that is being as
efficiently pursued as possible."

However, UK trustees believe the costs involved in bringing action
will put many pension funds off pursuing class action.

Occupational Pensions Defence Union chairman Peter Murray said:
"To be involved in UK litigation, the amount of time and resources
involved is enormous.

"Once you get involved, you are a servant of the court and you
have a huge amount of effort to put in.  It also potentially costs
a complete fortune if you lose and so you need to think very
seriously about getting involved."

                            *********

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  * * *