CAR_Public/110316.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 53

                             Headlines

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling on Appeals in N.Y. Suit Still Pending
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits in Georgia Remain Stayed
ATICO INT'L: Recalls 57,000 Holiday Rattle Baby Slippers
CANADA: Greenwood Residents Sue Over Well Water Contamination
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Gas Suits

CENTURYLINK: Embarq Still Defends "Retiree Benefits" Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Bodet & Lebryk Suits
CHINA AGRITECH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CHINA VALVES: April 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending

CLEARWIRE: Sued Over False Advertising on Broadband Internet
DIGITEK: Class Action Lawyers Demand More Than $6MM in Fees
DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals From Final Settlement Still Pending
EL PASO: Still Defends "Royalties" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma
FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Various States

GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Face American Export Antitrust Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defending Canadian Dealer Class Action Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Analog Discontinuation" Suits
GENON ENERGY: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Shareholder Suit
GENON ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Prices Suits in Four States

GENZYME CORP: Patients File Class Action Over Drug Shortage
HARD ROCK: Condo Owners File Class Action Over Financial Losses
LENDER PROCESSING: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Suit in Kentucky
LENDER PROCESSING: Motion to Dismiss "Thorne" Suit Still Pending
LENDER PROCESSING: "Knippel" Class Action Suit Dismissed

LENDER PROCESSING: Motion to Consolidate Fla. Suits Still Pending
LIBERTY FINANCIAL: Sued for Not Posting ATM Surcharges
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Awaits Approval of Class Suit Consolidation
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: ERISA Class Suit in Wisconsin Still Pending
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Class Action Suit in Nevada Still Pending

MIDLAND FUNDING: To Drop More Than 10,000 Debt-Collection Cases
NEW LEXINGTON: Ohio Supreme Ct. Won't Review Class Action Appeal
NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Lawyers Acted Appropriately in Settlement
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Consumer Class Action in New York
PARK STREET: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Approval of "Smithtown" Suit Settlement
PNM RESOURCES: Unit Awaits Outcome of Appeal in "Begay" Suit
PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls 325 Rocky Mountain Bicycles
PROSHARES TRUST II: Class Action Suit in New York Still Pending
RADIENT PHARMA: May 10 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Final Approval of Settlement Expected in 2011
SANOFI-AVENTIS: New Jersey Suit Remains in Discovery Phase
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Dismissal of Zimulti/Acomplia Suit Still Pending
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Class Certification Pending in Heartgard Suit
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Continues to Defend DDAVP Antitrust Suit

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Continues to Face Thimerosal Product Litigation
SUZUKI MANUFACTURING: Recalls 29,000 Suzuki KingQuad ATVs
SETTLEMENT FUNDING: Sued for Deceptive Business Practices
TELLABS INC: Parties in Ill. Securities Suit Reach Tentative Pact
TEXTRON INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Rhode Island Suits

WAL-MART STORES: Cos. Show Support Ahead of Class Action Hearing
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Catazarite Law Firm Files Class Action
WEBMD HEALTH: Awaits Final Approval of "TCPA" Suit Settlement
WEBMD HEALTH: Subsidiaries Face Class Action Suit in California

WHITNEY HOLDING: Continues to Defend "De LaPouyade" Suit in La.
WHITNEY HOLDING: Certification in Realistic Partners Suit Pending
XENOPORT INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for May 20



                             *********

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling on Appeals in N.Y. Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court has yet to rule on appeals from a final judgment
entered in a consolidated IPO class action lawsuit in New York,
according to Akamai Technologies, Inc.'s March 1, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the
year ended December 31, 2010.

Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as
well as against the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.  The complaints were filed
allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during different time periods, all beginning on October 28,
1999 and ending on various dates.  The complaints are similar and
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended
complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions.  The
consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class period as
October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  A Special Litigation
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized
management to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding that
was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  The parties negotiated a settlement that was
subject to approval by the District Court.  On February 15, 2005,
the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the
settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a
modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the
original settlement agreement.  On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement.  On August 25,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of a new
proposed settlement, plan of distribution of the settlement fund,
and certification of the settlement classes.  On October 5, 2009,
the District Court issued an opinion and order granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, approval
of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes.  An order and final
judgment was entered on November 4, 2009.  Notices of appeal of
the District Court's October 5, 2009 opinion and order have been
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  If the District Court's order is upheld on appeal, the
Company would have no material liability in connection with this
litigation, and the litigation would be resolved.  The Company has
recorded no liability for this matter as of December 31, 2010.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits in Georgia Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action complaints against Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc., remain stayed by a Georgia state
court, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing
for the period from June 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys Corporation, filed a purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County,
State of Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al.  The lawsuit
names the Company, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys, and each of the
directors of Eclipsys as defendants.  On or about June 17, 2010,
John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of
Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action complaint in the
same court and against the same defendants except not Arsenal
captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al.  On or about June 18,
2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class action
complaint in the same court and against the same defendants as the
first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.  On or about
June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class action
complaint in the same court and against the same parties as the
first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.  On or about
June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension
Plan, on behalf of itself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys,
filed a fifth purported class action complaint in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and against the same
defendants as the first case except not Allscripts or Arsenal and
captioned Iron Workers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et
al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case
dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On or about July 9, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.
On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf
of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case
except not Allscripts or Arsenal captioned Madala v. Pead et al.
The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently
transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business
Case Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided
and abetted those breaches.  Five of the complaints excepting the
first also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary public
offering of certain shares of the Company owned by Misys plc and
the buy back by the Company of certain shares owned by Misys.
Certain lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is
materially misleading in certain respects including the omission
of information concerning certain financial projections and
whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have
accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock
buy back. Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors
of Eclipsys.  Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among
other relief, rescission of the merger or damages.  They also
purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion
to dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint.  On or about
August 5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers'
emergency request for an injunction pending appeal.  The appeal
was then briefed in the ordinary course.  On November 12, 2010,
Iron Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court
of Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's
dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit.

Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed
a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay
that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five
cases listed above pending the Iron Workers appeal.  Defendants
opposed Madala's motion.  On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court
dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice.  The remaining four
lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court.


ATICO INT'L: Recalls 57,000 Holiday Rattle Baby Slippers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Atico International USA Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced
a voluntary recall of about 57,000 Holiday rattle baby slippers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The internal stuffing and rattle inside the slippers decorative
figures can be pulled out, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

Atico received one report of a 7-month old baby that was found
beginning to turn blue with the slippers' stuffing in its' mouth.
The baby's father removed the stuffing.  Two additional reports of
babies wearing the slippers who pulled on the rattle/stuffing and
the stuffing came out were also reported.  No injuries reported.

This recall involves slippers are decorated with stuffed fabric
figures including snowmen, Santa, reindeer, and penguins, and have
decorative rattles inside the slippers that sound like bells when
shaken.  Item number 999526 is printed on the back of the
cardboard header card packaging.  "Find Your Joy" is printed on
the front of the slippers packaging.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11167.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Walgreen stores nationwide from October 2010 through January 2011
for about $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the slippers and return
them to any Walgreen location for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Atico International USA toll-free at (877)
546-4835 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.aticousa.com


CANADA: Greenwood Residents Sue Over Well Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Mellor, writing for TheChronicleHerald.ca, reports that
about 128 Greenwood residents have signed on to a class action
against the federal government claiming that hazardous chemicals
from firefighting exercises and other activities at 14 Wing
Greenwood contaminated their well water.

The group recently made changes to a class action that it first
filed in 2007, and now alleges the military base is one of the
primary sources of high levels of a man-made chemical called
perchloroethylene that ended up in their groundwater.

"Information as to the involvement of (the federal government) as
one, if not the most, significant source of the chemicals and
contaminants became available to class (action) members in 2010,"
said an amended statement of claim filed with Nova Scotia Supreme
Court.

Prior to this, "Canada deliberately concealed involvement in the
contaminants migrating to the lands and ground and surface water
on the property of class members."

In 2004, provincial Environment Department testing in the Bowlby
Park near the base found high levels of perchloroethylene, also
known as perc, in some wells making the water unfit for human
consumption.  Studies have linked the chemical to cancer and other
health ailments.

Residents with contaminated wells paid about $5,000 each to be
hooked up to the municipal water supply.

Greenwood residents Donald and Andrea Rioux, who live on Mayhew
Drive, are named as representative plaintiffs in the case.

Besides seeking compensation for costs involved with connecting
with the municipal water supply and for diminished property
values, residents want to be monitored for the long-term health
effects of being exposed to the chemical in their drinking water.

"We have had some indication of illness . . . but as far as we
know, it is not widespread yet, but we will be concerned about
long-term impact," said Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner, who represents
residents in the class action.

"Part of our claim, of course, is for medical monitoring to ensure
that people are well tested, well-informed as to the potential for
illness."

The class action, which must be certified by the courts before it
can proceed, contains claims that have not been proven in court.
The federal government has not filed a defense.

As part of the same class action, the group is continuing with its
earlier claim that nearby commercial land, formerly home to a dry
cleaning facility, was also a source of perchlorethylene that
ended up in their well water.  That dry cleaning facility was
destroyed by fire in 1995.

The companies named in the lawsuit are current and former owners
of the land.  They include 1840743 Nova Scotia Ltd., Everett and
Smith Ltd., Foord Construction Ltd. and Sobeys Land Holdings Ltd.

Information about firefighting practices on the base using
"perchlorethylene-type" substances, as well as concerns about
drinking water on the base itself, just came to light last year,
said Mr. Wagner.

"It never really made sense to us that the quantity of perc would
have been to such a degree to cause such widespread contamination
within the community.  We were always suspicious of that."

The lawsuit alleges solvents, degreasing or cleaning agents
containing contaminants were used at the base in firefighting
simulation and were discharged or disposed of into the soil,
groundwater and surface water, both on and outside the base.

"We decided we had sufficient information at this time to proceed
against the federal government, as operators under the Department
of National Defence of the Greenwood facility," Mr. Wagner said

The Defence Department announced a drinking water advisory last
March at the Greenwood base after it found dangerous levels of
perfluorooctane sulfonate, a chemical that is used as an additive
in firefighting foam, in the base's well-water supply.

Some of the base housing has since been hooked up to the municipal
water supply, Capt. Scott Spurr, a base spokesman, said on
March 10.

However, the operational side of the base, including some military
living quarters, still rely on wells.

"The water advisory is still in effect for the base proper itself
that is not hooked up to the municipal water system," he said on
March 10.

"It is only for drinking water purposes that they have to use
bottled water."

The Defence Department did not respond at the time of this writing
to allegations contained in the claim or to a request for
information about the extent of contamination on the base.

Wagner said the contamination may have affected the groundwater of
more properties than that of the 128 residents who have come
signed onto the lawsuit.

"If more people are impacted, then they will become part of the
class," Mr. Wagner said.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Gas Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy, Inc., disclosed that it continues to pursue
dismissal of lawsuits relating to the operation of gas markets in
2000 to 2002, 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.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  The Company's former affiliate, RRI Energy, Inc., was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  The Company and its affiliates have been released
or dismissed from all but two of such cases.  CenterPoint Energy
Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a defendant
in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a
conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.
Additionally, the Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in March
2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme
Court.  The Company believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  The Company does not expect the
ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CENTURYLINK: Embarq Still Defends "Retiree Benefits" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Embarq Corporation is still defending itself against a lawsuit
over certain changes it made in its retiree program, according to
CenturyLink, Inc.'s March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

CenturyLink acquired Embarq on July 1, 2009.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas (Civil Action No. 07-CV-2602), a group of
retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decision to make certain modifications to Embarq's retiree
benefits programs generally effective January 1, 2008 (which
resulted in a $300 million reduction to the liability for retiree
benefits at the time of the modifications). Defendants include
Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits
Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its
benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and
certain of its benefit plans.  Recently, the Court certified a
class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class
certification as to other claims.  Embarq and other defendants
continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges.   Given
that this litigation is still in discovery, it is premature to
estimate the impact this lawsuit could have to the Company's
results of operation or financial condition.  In 2009, a ruling in
Embarq's favor was entered in an arbitration proceeding filed by
15 former Centel executives, similarly challenging the benefits
changes.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Bodet & Lebryk Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., remains a defendant in putative
class action lawsuits filed by Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. and Derrick
Lebryk in Louisiana and Illinois, 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 March 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed a putative class
action against the Company and Charter Communications Holding
Company LLC captioned Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. v. Charter
Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding Company,
LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  In April 2010, plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint which also named Charter Communications, LLC as a
defendant.  In the Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that
the defendants violated the Sherman Act, state antitrust law and
state unjust enrichment law by forcing subscribers to rent a set
top box in order to subscribe to cable video services which are
not available to subscribers by simply plugging a cable into a
cable-ready television.  In June 2009, Derrick Lebryk and Nichols
Gladson filed, but did not serve, a putative class action against
the Company, Charter Holdco and Charter Communications Holding,
LLC captioned Derrick Lebryk and Nicholas Gladson v. Charter
Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC,
CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman Act
based on similar allegations as those alleged in Bodet v. Charter,
et al.  The Company understands similar claims have been made
against other MSOs.  The Charter defendants deny any liability and
plan to vigorously contest these cases.


CHINA AGRITECH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
April 12, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline.  If you purchased the
common stock of China Agritech, Inc. during the period from
Feb. 8, 2010 through Feb. 3, 2011, you should contact the Rosen
Law Firm for more information about the importance of serving as a
lead plaintiff.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
investors from violations of federal securities laws.

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

The Complaint alleges China Agritech issued materially false and
misleading financial statements.  Particularly, the Complaint
alleges that on or about Feb. 3, 2011, analyst firm LM Research
issued a report alleging, among other things, that the Company's
statement of revenue and earnings for the fiscal year 2009 are
materially false and misleading.  The Report, citing sources,
claims that China Agritech's U.S. financial statements were
materially different than the financial statements filed with
Chinese authorities by a number of the Company's subsidiaries.
The report claims that the revenue reported in the Company's SEC
filings for 2009 is ten times larger than what the Chinese
regulatory reports show.  The LM Research report also noted a
number of potential badges of fraud within the Company.  The
Complaint alleges that when these disclosures of potential fraud
concerning China Agritech were revealed to the market, the price
of China Agritech stock dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to join the class action and serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2011.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  For more information
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq.
of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail
at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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

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

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


CHINA VALVES: April 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing shareholders in the
securities class action arising from allegations that China Valves
Technology, Inc. concealed management self-dealing in certain of
its acquisitions.  The class action is on behalf of purchasers of
China Valves Technology stock during the period from Jan. 12, 2010
through Jan. 13, 2011.

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

The Complaint alleges that certain China Valves officers and
directors concealed their personal self-interest in the Company's
acquisitions of Able Delight (Changsha) Valve Co. and Shanghai
Pudong Hanwei Valve Co., Ltd.  Specifically, that defendants
concealed that both acquisitions involved payments to entities or
persons that were related to management in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and SEC rules.  The Complaint also
alleges that Defendants materially overstated the financial
condition and business prospects of the acquired companies.  When
the market learned of this adverse information, the price of China
Valves stock dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 5, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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

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

CONTACT:  Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a putative
class action lawsuit filed by a disability rights group in
California, 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.

On December 10, 2010, the Company was made a party to a putative
class action claim in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The claim has been filed by a
disability rights group and two individuals for injunctive relief,
damages and attorney's fees concerning captioning the movie
exhibitions at the Company's theatres in California. Monetary
damages are also sought on behalf of all hearing-disabled patrons
of the Company's theatres in California. This case is in an early
pretrial phase. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
suit. It is currently unable to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss related to this matter.


CLEARWIRE: Sued Over False Advertising on Broadband Internet
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Eaton, writing for seattlepi.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleges Kirkland-based Clearwire falsely advertises its
broadband Internet as high-speed and intentionally "throttles
down" the service to 1990s dial-up levels -- likening the practice
to "a bandwidth Ponzi scheme."

Clearwire customers from across the country, including four
plaintiffs in Washington state, allege the technology firm --
founded by local cellular mogul Craig McCaw -- violated a slew of
unfair-business state laws and misleads potential customers.

"Clearwire continually advertises 'High Speed Internet' or 'faster
Internet' service (or substantially identical phrases) to induce
prospective customers to subscribe to the service," the lawsuit
alleges.  "In reality, Clearwire throttles down the speed of its
Internet service to speeds similar to dial-up telephone modem
speeds.  These speeds make it difficult or impossible to use the
Internet in many ways that now are considered routine.

"Customers soon realize they are not receiving the service that
was advertised and they were promised.  If they seek to terminate
the service, Clearwire adds insult to injury by collecting or
trying to collect certain early termination fees.

"Clearwire's practice is akin to a bandwidth Ponzi scheme in the
sense that Clearwire advertises and sells a service, knowing in
advance that there is no way it can provide such service on an
ongoing basis -- i.e., Clearwire sells subscriptions prior to
build-out of sufficient infrastructure to support the 'High Speed
Internet' it advertises.

"Someday, if Clearwire sells enough subscriptions, it may have
sufficient funds to go back and create the infrastructure to
support its Internet service and make good on its promises."

The 15 named plaintiffs are asking that Clearwire be ordered to
end its "wrongful practices," return subscription fees to all
affected customers, and pay the maximum monetary damages after a
jury trial.  They also claim Clearwire breached its contracts with
customers, broke good-faith business laws and unjustly profited
from offering sub-par and misrepresented services.

Clifford Cantor, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said there
is widespread frustration among Clearwire customers nationwide --
much which can be found on online discussion boards and on
Facebook.

"I receive so many phone calls that you wouldn't believe it.
There are thousands of people who are furious Clearwire
customers," said Cantor, who is based in Sammamish.  "There are
some days when I do nothing but talk to people on the phone about
this case."

While Clearwire's law office did not reply to a seattlepi.com
request for comment, a company spokesperson released the following
statement:

"Our network-management practices comply with applicable law and
are consistent with our acceptable-use policy.  The lawsuit
grossly mischaracterizes how we operate our network and we plan a
vigorous defense against the allegations."

Trouble in Kirkland

Meanwhile, Clearwire's business is in dire straits.

Almost assuredly unconnected to the lawsuit, Clearwire CEO Bill
Morrow resigned on Thursday amid financial hardship at the
company.  John Stanton, who became the company's chairman after
McCaw stepped down from the post on Dec. 31, is now CEO until
Clearwire finds a new chief executive.

The company's chief commercial officer, Mike Sievert, and chief
information officer, Kevin Hart, also on March 10 announced plans
to leave the company.

In November, Clearwire reported a quarterly loss of $139.4 million
and said it planned to lay off 15% of its workforce.  Three months
later, on Feb. 17, it recorded another net loss -- this time of
$126 million.

Clearwire has abandoned plans to release branded mobile phones,
has suspended work on expanding its "Clear" wireless Internet
service to additional markets, and has slowed infrastructure
improvements such as adding more wireless towers.

"But they haven't stopped taking subscriptions," Mr. Cantor said.
"They're still advertising everywhere."

Sprint Nextel, which owns a majority stake in Clearwire, has been
promoting Clearwire's Clear "WiMax" wireless technology for its
smart phones.  The first phone branded as 4G, the Sprint HTC Evo,
uses Clear -- though industry experts don't consider any services
currently marketed as 4G to use true fourth-generation wireless.

In building out the Clear service, Clearwire also has investors in
Intel, Comcast, Sprint, Google, Time Warner Cable and Bright House
Networks.

On March 9, before Mr. Morrow announced his resignation, Sprint
CEO Dan Hesse said his company is looking at further options to
build out its wireless network but will continue its partnership
with Clearwire.

"In every option we're looking at, every one includes WiMax and
Clearwire," Mr. Hesse told Reuters.  However, he was unsure "how
heavily we're with Clearwire versus the other alternatives."

Bloomberg News and The Wall Street Journal also reported that
Sprint is in merger talks with Bellevue-based T-Mobile USA, which
is a subsidiary of Germany's Deutsche Telekom.

Lawsuit complicates things

The class-action lawsuit, filed Nov. 15 in U.S. District Court in
Seattle and amended March 3 to add 14 plaintiffs, complicates
things even more for Clearwire, Sprint, their partners and the
entire mobile industry.

Sprint bet big on Clearwire to reinvigorate its business, which is
lagging behind AT&T and Verizon Wireless as they build momentum
with the Apple iPhone and the most popular Google Android smart
phones.  Clearwire, meanwhile, has made it a priority to expand
its reach, adding 1.5 million subscribers between from November
through January.

"Despite this strong growth, our current plans and funding dictate
that we remain prudent with our spending," Mr. Morrow said last
month, when he was still CEO.  "Significant network expansion in
the near term, however, remains contingent upon additional
funding."

To connect their computers to the Internet via wireless USB
receivers and modems, Clearwire broadband customers use the same
Clear service as Sprint 4G users.  Wireless Internet services from
Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House also use Clearwire's
infrastructure.

"Clearwire's strategy for cramming as many subscribers as possible
onto its network," the class action alleges, "relies on a policy
pursuant to which, if a subscriber uses what Clearwire considers
to be too much Internet bandwidth, Clearwire's systems
automatically trigger a throttle on the speed of that subscriber's
Internet connection."

"This practice," the lawsuit continues, "renders all Clearwire
Internet service plans a bad choice for any application, and
especially bad for gaming, streaming videos, downloading large
files, anything else requiring high-speed access.  Even if a
customer's Internet service is unlimited and fast when the
customer's service is activated, as promised, it is only a matter
of time before it is throttled down to a rate that makes routine
Internet use excruciatingly slow."

The class action so far

In January, when the class action included just one named
plaintiff from Texas, Clearwire's attorneys attempted to have the
case dismissed.  Clearwire also tried to move the case into out-
of-court arbitration, as stipulated by the company's terms of
service for its products.  The terms also attempt to exempt
Clearwire from class-action lawsuits from customers.

Both requests were withdrawn to allow for the amended complaint.
Cantor said the court is likely to view the terms-of-service
exceptions as unenforceable based on legal precedent.

"For the most part, users don't see the terms of service until
after they've already signed up," Mr. Cantor said.  "You pay for
the equipment, you pay for the services, you go home and set it up
. . . and the first time you ever see the terms of service, you're
already hooked up."

The first complaint, filed in November, alleged that Clearwire
violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Clearwire's
attorneys vehemently argued against that claim, mainly focusing on
the CFAA in its January motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The amended complaint includes no mention of the CFAA. Cantor said
it was a "strategic decision."  However, the amended suit adds
claims that Clearwire breached certain state laws where the 15
plaintiffs live.

Additional Clearwire customers may be able to join the class
action.  The company's Web site states it has more than 4.4
million customers in 29 states.

Clearwire has until March 31 to respond to the amended complaint
in court.


DIGITEK: Class Action Lawyers Demand More Than $6MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
plaintiff lawyers, who settled claims over heart medicine Digitek
for $10 million to $13 million, ask U.S. District Judge Joseph
Goodwin for more than $6 million.

Lead counsel Fred Thompson, of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant,
S.C., petitioned in February for $4,400,041.75 in fees for
litigating against pill maker Actavis Totowa and distributor Mylan
Pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Thompson asked Judge Goodwin to order reimbursement of
plaintiff steering committee members for $1,338,260.91 in
expenses, including committee assessments on members at $25,000 a
head.

The petition provided little or no documentation of travel and
meal expenses.

Co-lead counsel Carl Frankovitch of Weirton submitted monthly
reports showing his firm spent $27,986.04 on travel and meals,
with no details.

Camp Bailey of Houston, Texas, submitted two bills for "Amex
travel exp" on the same day, for $7,701.20 and $2,140.05, with no
details.

More candid than most, Ed Blizzard of Houston informed
Judge Goodwin that his firm spent $992.31 on a single occasion at
Rapscallion's restaurant in Denver.

Seeking further fees under a theory that lawyers who lost should
win, Mr. Thompson asked Judge Goodwin to award $340,073.50 to
committee members who proposed a class action over economic
losses.

Judge Goodwin denied class certification last year, finding
individual issues predominated over common issues.

Mr. Thompson wrote, "While efforts to achieve class certification
were ultimately unsuccessful, the work performed by class counsel
and the time and money spent pursuing these claims did further the
litigation as a whole."

He asked for $7,848.39 in reimbursement of class action expenses,
bringing the total request to $6,086,224.55.

The litigation started in 2008, after Actavis recalled a batch of
Digitek from a plant in New Jersey due to fears it had doubled the
thickness of some pills.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation consolidated
cases from many federal courts and assigned them to Goodwin.

Some suits alleged personal injuries and some alleged economic
losses.

Litigation over personal injuries lost steam after Goodwin allowed
Actavis and Mylan to see medical reports behind the claims.

Actavis and Mylan discovered that lawyers had sued without medical
evidence, and lawyers began dismissing suits.

Litigation over economic losses lost steam when Goodwin denied
class certification.

The parties announced a settlement last September, obligating
Actavis and Mylan to contribute $10 to $13 million to a private
fund.

Several plaintiffs opted out, and Judge Goodwin plans to continue
proceedings for them.

He must also decide whether to award all the fees and expenses the
settling lawyers requested.

Peter Miller of Orange, Va., billed $580,125, for 1,547 hours at
$375 an hour. His associate Preston Williams billed $187,275, for
681 hours at $275 an hour.

Their firm billed $15,425 for travel, with no details.

James Pettit of Cherry Hill, N.J., billed $399,657.50 for 726.65
hours at $550 an hour.

Scott Weinstein of Fort Myers, Fla., billed $290,860 for 551.6
hours at his firm, more than $500 an hour, plus $7,157 for meals
and travel, with no details.
Harry Bell of Charleston billed $196,820 for 605.6 hours at $325
an hour, and billed $80,669 for 648.44 hours of an associate and a
paralegal.

Shelly Sanford of Houston billed $105,050 for 210.1 hours at $500
an hour and $89,633.25 for Anthony Coveny at $245 an hour.

Her firm billed $11,288.71 for travel and meals, with no details.

Bailey's firm billed $79,942.50 for his time at $550 an hour, and
$133,521.25 for others at an average of about $350 an hour.

Blizzard's firm billed $45,925.57 for travel and meals, with no
details.

An award for class action fees would mostly benefit the Wolf
Popper firm in New York, where lawyers billed $264,578.50 for
490.8 hours on the certification motion that failed.

Meghan Carter of Motley Rice topped them all with 3,534.65 hours,
roughly equal to a year and eight months at 40 hours a week.

Mr. Thompson reported 1,821 hours, plus 25 on the class action,
but he left it to Goodwin's discretion to award a reasonable rate
to him, Carter and others at Motley Rice.

The firm requested reimbursement of $182,696.19 in expenses, plus
$190,301.78 it spent to cover expenses of the plaintiff steering
committee in a period of low operating funds.

Goodwin ordered Actavis and Mylan to respond by March 15.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals From Final Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation disclosed that appeals filed by
two objectors to the settlement entered in a putative class action
relating to Hoover's Inc.'s initial public offering 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 November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Hoover's, certain of
its then current and former officers and directors, and one of the
underwriters of Hoover's July 1999 initial public offering.  The
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Hoover's stock
between July 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The operative
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Hoover's and the
Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
allocated stock in Hoover's IPO to certain investors in exchange
for commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at prices above
the IPO price.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Hoover's
IPO was false and misleading because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the
Company, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including Hoover's.  On
October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to the
settlement.  Two objectors to the settlement are proceeding with
appeals to the Second Circuit.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  No
amount in respect of any potential judgment in this matter has
been accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements.


EL PASO: Still Defends "Royalties" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Company continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company underpaid its
royalty payments, 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 named defendant, along with Burlington Resources,
Inc. (Burlington), now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in
a class action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.,
filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County,
Oklahoma asserting royalty underpayment claims related to
specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. The
Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in the
1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural
Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices.  The Plaintiffs have not
alleged an amount of damages against any defendant.  The Company
believes that its actions in the 1980s were proper in light of a
declining market.  The Company also contends that it is entitled
to an indemnity from Burlington under the Company's 1992
separation agreement for all claims related to royalty payments,
which Burlington denies.  The Plaintiffs assert that royalties
were further underpaid by Burlington as a result of post-
production cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s.  The
Company has no liability for the post-production claims as they
pertain to periods after the Company's separation from Burlington.
This action was transferred to Washita County District Court in
2004. A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected
by the court in June 2007. A class certification hearing occurred
in April 2009.  The court certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of
royalty owners and stayed the claims pertaining to New Mexico
wells.  The class certification has been appealed to the Oklahoma
Court of Appeals.  The Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of
the post-production claims against Burlington.  The Company's
costs and legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not currently
determinable.


FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Various States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries continue
to defend themselves against a number of class action lawsuits
pending in various states, according to the Company's March 1,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents:

   * charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
     transaction, including:

        -- Boucher v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on May 16, 2007 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Western District of Washington,

        -- Campbell v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on August 16, 2008 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the District of Maine,

        -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on August 22, 2007 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Northern District of
           Texas,

        -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake
           County,

        -- Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the District of New Jersey,

        -- Hickman v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on May 25, 2007 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the District of Ohio,

        -- Johnson v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on May 27, 2008 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the District of Arizona,

        -- Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New
           York, filed on January 11, 2008 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the Western District
           of New York,

        -- Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Eastern District of
           Pennsylvania,

        -- Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the District of Idaho,

        -- Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit
           Court, Nassau County, Florida,

        -- Scott v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on March 7, 2007 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

        -- Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Western District of
           Pennsylvania and

        -- Tello v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on July 14, 2009 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

     All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has
     granted class certification only in Campbell, Hamilton (North
     Carolina), Hamilton (Texas), Johnson, Lewis, Raffone and
     Slapikas. An appeal to a higher court is pending with respect
     to the granting of class certification in Hamilton (Texas)
     and a motion to decertify the class in Campbell is pending.
     The Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss
     or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
     the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
     believes the amount is immaterial to the financial statements
     as a whole;

   * purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
     inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to
     the Company, gave items of value to title insurance agents
     and others for referrals of business and paid marketing fees
     to real estate brokers as an inducement to refer home
     warranty business, in each case in violation of the Real
     Estate Settlement Procedures Act, including

        -- Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed
           on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Central District of California,

        -- Galiano v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on February 8, 2008 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District
           of New York,

        -- Paul v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, filed on July 29, 2010 and pending in the
           United States District Court, Middle District of
           Florida, Ft. Myers Division and

        -- Zaldana v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on July 15, 2008 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Northern District of
           California.

     All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
     class has not been certified, except in Edwards. In Edwards a
     narrow class has been certified and information is being
     exchanged for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to argue
     whether a broader class is appropriate. In addition, a
     petition for a hearing on the legal right of the Edwards
     plaintiff to sue is pending in the United States Supreme
     Court. The Company has been unable to assess the probability
     of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss;

   * conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
     engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

        -- Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
           filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the District of Connecticut
           and

        -- Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et
           al., filed on May 9, 2007 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the District of
           Massachusetts.

     Both of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
     class has not been certified. Consequently, the Company has
     not yet been able to assess the probability of loss.

   * overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
     services provided in connection with the closing of real
     estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
     telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
     items of value to developers, builders and others as
     inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
     laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
     prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
     obligations, including:

        -- Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in
           the Superior Court of the State of California, County
           of Los Angeles,

        -- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the District of New
           Jersey,

        -- Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009 and
           pending in the Superior Court of the State of
           California, County of Los Angeles,

        -- Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, filed on March 10, 2009 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the Southern District
           of California,

        -- Diehl v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on December 11, 2009 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the District of
           Montana,

        -- Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on February
           26, 2010 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
           of California, County of Kern,

        -- Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

        -- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of California, County of
           Los Angeles,

        -- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
           June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
           State of California, County of Los Angeles,

        -- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of California, County of
           Los Angeles,

        -- Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009 and
           pending in the United States District Court for the
           Western District of Washington and

        -- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
           filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior
           Court of the State of California, County of Los
           Angeles.

     All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
     class has not been certified. Consequently, the Company has
     not yet been able to assess the probability of loss.

The Company says that while some of the lawsuits may be material
to its operating results in any particular period if an
unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any
of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's overall financial condition.


GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Face American Export Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada is still defending itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by purchasers in Canada, according to General
Motors 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.

On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL and Old GM on behalf of a purported
class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada
claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing
lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians. The
plaintiffs have delivered their certification materials. An order
staying claims against MLC was granted in November 2009. In
December 2010 the plaintiffs/class counsel advised that they
intend to file further evidence from class members. The court has
allowed the plaintiffs to file additional evidence by January 31,
2011. The plaintiffs filed additional affidavit materials, and
GMCL is in the process of reviewing these affidavits. A decision
has not yet been made as to whether or not to cross-examine the
affiants. The date for delivery of GMCL's responding material is
March 21, 2011. A certification hearing has not yet been
scheduled. No determination has been made that the case may be
maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine
the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of
any damages.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defending Canadian Dealer Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed by dealers in Canada, according to General Motors
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.

On January 21, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL for damages on behalf of a purported
class of 215 Canadian General Motors dealers which entered into
wind-down agreements with GMCL in May 2009. GMCL offered the
plaintiff dealers the wind-down agreements to assist the
plaintiffs' exit from the GMCL Canadian dealer network upon the
expiration of their GM Dealer Sales and Service Agreements (DSSAs)
on October 31, 2010, and to assist the plaintiffs in winding down
their dealer operations in an orderly fashion. The plaintiff
dealers allege that the DSSAs have been wrongly terminated by GMCL
and that GMCL failed to comply with franchise disclosure
obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and
unlawfully interfered with the dealers' statutory right to
associate in an attempt to coerce the class member dealers into
accepting the wind-down agreements. The plaintiff dealers claim
that the wind-down agreements are void. GMCL is vigorously
defending the claims. A certification hearing was held in December
2010, and the decision on class certification was reserved. No
determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a
class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood
of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.


GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Analog Discontinuation" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of General Motors Company continues to defend itself
against several lawsuits due to its discontinuation of services
for vehicles with analog hardware, 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's subsidiary OnStar Corporation is a party to more
than 20 putative class actions filed in various states, including
Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. All of
these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a
multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar Contract
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by
OnStar of services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware.
OnStar was unable to provide services to such vehicles because the
cellular carriers which provide communication service to OnStar
terminated analog service beginning in February 2008. In the
various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of
nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently
equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of
contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. No
determination has been made as to whether class certification
motions are appropriate, and it is not possible at this time to
determine whether class certification or liability is probable as
to OnStar or to reasonably ascertain the amount of any liability.
On August 2, 2010 plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add General
Motors LLC, the Company's subsidiary, as an additional defendant,
which was denied by the court in an opinion dated January 25,
2011.


GENON ENERGY: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries are awaiting final court
approval of a settlement in a consolidated action captioned In re
Mirant Corporation Shareholder Litigation, 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 April 2010, RRI Energy, Inc., and Mirant Corporation, the
Company's subsidiaries, and members of the Mirant board of
directors were named as defendants in four purported class action
lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia,
brought in connection with the Merger on behalf of proposed
classes consisting of holders of Mirant common stock, excluding
the defendants and their affiliates: Rosenbloom v. Cason, et al.,
No. 2010CV184223, filed April 13, 2010; The Vladmir Gusinsky
Living Trust v. Muller, et al., No. 2010CV184331, filed April 15,
2010; Ng v. Muller, et al., No. 2010CV184449, filed April 16,
2010; and Bayne v. Muller, et al., No. 2010CV184648, filed
April 21, 2010.  The complaints allege, among other things, that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value to be received by Mirant's public
stockholders and that the other defendants aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  In three of
the actions, amended complaints were filed adding allegations that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
certain information in the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus related to the Merger.  The complaints seek,
among other things, rescission of the merger and/or granting the
class members any profits or benefits allegedly improperly
received by defendants in connection with the Merger.

In August 2010, the court entered an order, consented to by all
parties, consolidating the four cases under the caption In re
Mirant Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. 2010CV184223,
directing that the amended complaint in Rosenbloom v. Cason, et
al., No. 2010CV1c824223, serve as the operative complaint, and
appointing co-lead counsel.  In January 2011, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement that, upon final approval by the
court, will dismiss the actions.  In February 2011, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  The settlement was based
on the inclusion of additional disclosures in the Form S-4 filed
with the SEC on September 13, 2010.  In connection with the
settlement, GenOn agreed to pay up to $1.5 million in attorneys'
fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.  No further amounts
would be payable to the plaintiffs.


GENON ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Prices Suits in Four States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc., remains a defendant in five class action
lawsuits arising from its alleged conduct to increase gas prices
in four states, 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.

GenOn is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class action
lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada
and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar
laws.  The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses.  The lawsuits also name a number of unaffiliated
energy companies as parties.


GENZYME CORP: Patients File Class Action Over Drug Shortage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that several Pittsburgh-area
residents, joined by others from out of state, on March 9 filed a
would-be class action lawsuit against Genzyme Corp. and two
education institutions, blaming them for a prolonged shortage of a
life-saving drug.

The plaintiffs, led by Anita Hochendoner of Whitehall, suffer from
the genetic illness Fabry disease, which, according to their
complaint, makes it difficult for their bodies to move fats from
cells.  The condition eventually causes death.

The drug Fabrazyme, developed through a taxpayer-funded process
and patented by Genzyme, is the only legal way to treat the
disease in the U.S., according to the lawsuit.  A doctor at the
City University of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine
received a patent for the drug. CUNY and Mount Sinai are named
defendants.

Genzyme rationed the drug, reducing some patients' doses
dramatically and barring new patients from getting the drug, the
complaint said, after a virus infected the Massachusetts plant
where the drug is made in 2009.


HARD ROCK: Condo Owners File Class Action Over Financial Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
10News.com reports that dozens of San Diegans have filed a
class-action lawsuit against a downtown hotel after they said the
developers failed to deliver on numerous financial promises.

The rock-and-roll lifestyle of the Hard Rock Hotel San Diego is
what builders sold to potential investors in 2005.  Hundreds of
condos built into the hotel would be sold to offset the cost of
construction.  The hotel even lived up to its name with a Black
Eyed Peas concert when it opened in the Gaslamp Quarter in 2007.

"Anything you want -- your favorite booze, your favorite robes,
whatever it is.  We set you up in your unit, but then you don't
have to worry about it.  You give it back to us.  We rent it and
share the dollars with you," said builder Greg Casserly in 2005.

Anyone who bought a condo would be able to stay in it for 28 days.
It would be rented out the rest of the year, with the hotel and
owner splitting the profits.  According to a lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court, dozens of investors said they were told those
profits would cover their monthly expenses.

"We would have an income that would cover our expenses, not only
the mortgage but the homeowners association on top of it," said
Coronado resident Keith Jeske, who is one of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.  "We were so-called going to be 'rock stars.'"

After receiving that promise, Keith and his wife, Christy, put
down $100,000 towards a $540,000 condo in the Hard Rock Hotel San
Diego.  After paying the mortgage, homeowners association dues,
taxes and maintenance fees, the Jeske's monthly bill was roughly
$3,500.  However, the profits from the hotel never covered that
total.

"We just couldn't make the payments anymore," said Christy Jeske.

The Jeskes said they've lost upwards of $250,000 since investing
in the condo.

"It's just money that we absolutely couldn't lose," Keith Jeske
said.

"These people invested their money based on the savvy marketing
and sizzle that the hotel developers made as part of their
sophisticated plan," said the plaintiffs' attorney Maria Severson.

Severson said the property deals were not properly registered with
the state.

"They submitted to the California Department of Real Estate
documents but didn't give them the rental management agreement,
which is what makes these people lose money every month," she
said.

The Jeskes said they were scammed by the developers and builders.
They couldn't maintain the losses and they lost their Hard Rock
condo to foreclosure.  They've joined 38 other plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit against the hotel and its lenders. Seventeen
defendants are named in all, including Tarsadia Hotels, Greg
Casserly and 5th Rock, LLC.

The Hard Rock chain is not an owner of the Hard Rock Hotel San
Diego.  Tarsadia and 5th Rock lease the brand name for their
hotel.

On March 11, Hard Rock Hotel General Manager Matt Greene e-mailed
10News the following statement:

"5th Rock, LLC and Tarsadia Hotels acknowledge that the case was
filed in December of 2009. All defendants have denied the
allegations made.  It is our policy not to comment on pending
litigation, other than to note that 5th Rock, Tarsadia Hotels and
the individuals listed as defendants have and will continue to
vigorously defend the claims."


LENDER PROCESSING: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Foster, et al., voluntarily dismissed a putative class
action complaint they filed against Lender Processing Services
Inc. in Kentucky, 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 was named in a putative class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court in the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division on September 28, 2010. Many of
plaintiffs' allegations are neither directed at nor relate to the
Company's business, including challenges to the securitization of
loans, the use of assignments of mortgage, and the participation
of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, in the
foreclosure process. Generally, plaintiffs make allegations
concerning unlawful foreclosure, conspiracy and other matters
relating to the handling of the plaintiffs' loans and the default
process. The plaintiffs never served the Company with the
complaint in this proceeding, and this case was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs on February 3, 2011. A motion for
sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel is pending.


LENDER PROCESSING: Motion to Dismiss "Thorne" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
motion for summary judgment, which seeks to dismiss a putative
class action complaint, styled Thorne vs. Prommis Solution Holding
Corporation, Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al., 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 was named in a putative class action adversary
proceeding filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi on September 30, 2010. The
complaint has a single plaintiff and alleges that the defendants
engaged in unlawful fee splitting with the attorneys representing
the creditor in the bankruptcy matter and the unauthorized
practice of law. On October 28, 2010, the Company filed a motion
for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint.


LENDER PROCESSING: "Knippel" Class Action Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint, styled Knippel vs. Saxon Mortgage
Services, Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al., was dismissed
in January, 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.

Lender Processing was named in a putative class action complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on October 5, 2010. The complaint had a single plaintiff
and alleged unspecified violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, deceptive trade practices and unlawful fee
splitting. This proceeding was dismissed with prejudice in January
2011.


LENDER PROCESSING: Motion to Consolidate Fla. Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate two class action complaints filed against
Lender Processing Services Inc. in Florida remains 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.

On December 1, 2010, the Company was served with a complaint
entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System v.
Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al., which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The putative class action seeks damages for alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its default operations. On December 29,
2010, the court entered an order granting a temporary suspension
of filing deadlines pending a determination of the lead plaintiff
and lead counsel. On January 24, 2011, applications for lead
plaintiff and counsel were filed. On January 11, 2011, a second
putative class action complaint entitled Southwest Ohio District
Council of Carpenters vs. LPS, Inc., et al., was filed in the
Middle District of Florida. The second complaint contains nearly
identical allegations, and a motion to consolidate the two matters
is pending.


LIBERTY FINANCIAL: Sued for Not Posting ATM Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
New Orleans bank is facing a lawsuit that accuses it of violating
federal regulations by failing to place fee notices signs on 13 of
its ATM machines.

Claiming violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
Robert Landry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against Liberty Financial Services d/b/a
Liberty Bank & Trust Co. on Feb. 38 in federal court in New
Orleans.

According to the complaint, the bank has failed to post a notice
that it will impose a fee on consumers who withdrawal cash from
its ATM.  In February 2011, Robert Landry attempted to use one of
the defendant's automated teller machine and was charged $2.50 to
withdraw money.  He claims there was no fee notice posted.

On behalf of the proposed class, the plaintiff is seeking an award
of actual and statutory damages, court costs and attorney's fees.

Rushton is represented by Metairie attorney Bruce C. Betzer.  A
jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Lance M. Africk is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-00481


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Awaits Approval of Class Suit Consolidation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corp. is awaiting court approval of an agreement
to consolidate 10 class action lawsuits filed against the company
over its pending merger with BMO Financial Group, 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.

Eight putative class action complaints have been filed in the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin against the
Corporation, its directors, and BMO relating to the Corporation's
pending merger with BMO: Berens v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021273; Ohlgart v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021485; Sayeg v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021622; Schindler v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021528; Stadler v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021676; Onwudebe v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 10CV021742; Anthony v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 11CV000338; and Drummond v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp.,
et al., Case No. 11CV000380.  Each of these complaints names the
Corporation and the members of the Corporation's board of
directors as defendants and alleges that the Corporation's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders.
Each of the complaints except the Onwudebe action also names BMO
as a defendant and alleges that BMO aided and abetted the alleged
breach of fiduciary duty.  In addition, the Anthony action names
Gregory A. Smith, the Corporation's Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant and alleges that Mr. Smith
breached fiduciary duties to the Corporation's shareholders.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the United States
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin relating to the
merger:  Fruchter v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., No. 10-cv-
01157, and Folisi v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-
00025.  These complaints allege that the Corporation and its
directors breached fiduciary duties to the Corporation's
shareholders and that BMO aided and abetted such breaches.

All ten lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of
the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.  Certain of
the actions also seek the imposition of a constructive trust for
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants and/or an
accounting of damages sustained as a result of the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The state court actions were
consolidated on February 11, 2011 by stipulation of the parties to
these actions.  The stipulation and proposed order of
consolidation is pending approval by the Wisconsin state court.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: ERISA Class Suit in Wisconsin Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corp. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin by
participants in the Company's retirement 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.

In April 2010, two substantially identical putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Corporation, the M&I
Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and certain of the
Corporation's officers and directors. The lawsuits were
purportedly filed on behalf of M&I Retirement Program, three other
retirement savings plans and a class of former and current
participants in those plans, relating to the holdings of
Corporation common stock during the period from November 10, 2006
to December 17, 2009. The complaints, which were consolidated into
a single complaint in July 2010, allege breaches of fiduciary
duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) relating to Corporation common stock being offered as an
investment alternative for participants in the retirement plans
and seek monetary damages. At this early stage of the lawsuit, it
is not possible for management of the Corporation to assess the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss at this time. The Corporation
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Class Action Suit in Nevada Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in a Nevada district
court, 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.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleges that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleges
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which is substantially similar to the Fosbre
litigation, seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On November 1, 2010, a purported
class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner.
The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. This action is
in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on
proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of this matter. The Company intends to
defend this matter vigorously.


MIDLAND FUNDING: To Drop More Than 10,000 Debt-Collection Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Midland Funding LLC will drop more than 10,000 debt-collection
cases against Maryland consumers under a class action settlement
approved on March 9 in Baltimore federal court.

The dismissed claims, mostly for unpaid credit card debt that
Midland bought from creditors, total at least $10.2 million,
according to a court document filed on March 9 by the plaintiffs.

Consumers filed suit against Midland, a buyer and collector of
debt, in September 2009, alleging "prolonged, illegal, and
systematic abuse of thousands of Maryland residents."  Plaintiffs
alleged that Midland was operating as a debt collector without a
state license, in violation of state and federal law, said
Peter A. Holland, the attorney for class members.  The settlement
was reached in June and approved on March 9 by U.S. District Judge
Richard D. Bennett.

Mr. Holland, principal of the Holland Law Firm in Annapolis, said
the debt-collection cases were "an albatross" for the plaintiffs.

"It can impact your ability to get a job . . . to get an apartment
. . . to get a loan," he said.

Of the settlement's approval, Mr. Holland said: "To get this type
of relief in this economy, it's an extraordinary thing.  It's a
great day for a lot of consumers in Maryland."

Midland is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, a publicly traded
company based in San Diego that buys defaulted consumer loans from
banks, credit unions and utilities.

Encore Capital Group officials were pleased, the company said in a
statement.  "In the settlement of this class action lawsuit, the
court made no finding of any wrongdoing by either Encore or
Midland and there was no admission of liability."

Midland had been a client of the Mann Bracken law firm in
Rockville, which handled debt-collection lawsuits before shutting
down abruptly last year.  Lawsuits and regulators accused the firm
of failing to comply with debt-collection laws and harassing
borrowers.

Besides dropping the consumer debt-collection cases, Midland
agreed not to refile the lawsuits or to sell the accounts in which
debts were owed.  However, the settlement allows Midland to
contact debtors for payment as long as it follows debt-collection
laws.  Mr. Holland said Midland is now licensed to collect debts
in Maryland.


NEW LEXINGTON: Ohio Supreme Ct. Won't Review Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gadd, writing for Zanesville Times Recorder, reports that
the Ohio Supreme Court won't review two lower court rulings to
deny class action in a case involving an alleged New Lexington
puppy mill operation.

Attorney John Bell filed suit in 2009 on behalf of residents in
Perry, Licking, Franklin and Pickaway counties against the Wagon
Wheel Ranch, operated by New Lexington businessman Donald Dutiel,
his wife, Louella, and friend Elizabeth Singleton.

The case alleges the trio operated a puppy mill for the past
several years, selling sick and diseased stray animals in
violation of state laws.

Last fall, Mr. Bell asked the state high court to review the
ruling of the 5th District Court of Appeals, which upheld in
September an earlier decision by Perry County Common Pleas Court
Judge Linton D. Lewis Jr. to deny Mr. Bell's lawsuit move forward
as a class action.

The Supreme Court did not issue an opinion in deciding not to hear
the case last month.

"This refusal will return the case to the Perry County Court of
Common Pleas for further proceedings, since everything had been
'paused' while we appealed the denial of class-action
certification," Mr. Bell said.  "Of course, we are deeply
disappointed with the decision to deny class certification to this
case.  We believe that we had amply demonstrated that there were
enough victims to make this an appropriate case to proceed as a
class action."

Mr. Bell submitted 15 affidavits to Judge Lewis and said his
office had 12 other questionnaires that had not been returned.
L. Jackson Henniger, attorney for the Dutiels, previously argued
state law holds that a class action needs at least 30 plaintiffs
to satisfy the courts' rule on "numerosity" and Mr. Bell's case
did not meet that requirement.

Mr. Bell appealed the Lewis decision to the appeals court, which
upheld the ruling.  He asked the Supreme Court to review the case
in November.

People who brought viable claims to Mr. Bell's office will be
asked if they wished to join the case as individual plaintiffs.

"The case will proceed to trial or other resolution with our
original Plaintiffs and as many others as decide to join,"
Mr. Bell added.


NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Lawyers Acted Appropriately in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Ross Todd,
the lawyers who settled a class action lawsuit connected to the
$170 million corporate merger of Nighthawk Radiology and Virtual
Radiologic Corporation can breathe a sigh of relief.  A special
counsel appointed by Delaware Vice-Chancellor J. Travis Laster to
look into possible "forum shopping" and "collusive" behavior in
the case has concluded in a report released on March 11 that they
acted appropriately in their settlement of the case.

In their 42-page report, Gregory Williams and Blake Rohrbacher of
Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington found that the settlement
of the Nighthawk case was in line with industry standards.

"Settlements in multi-jurisdictional deal litigation are nearly
always reached quickly -- defendants trying to preserve their
transactions need to resolve potential injunction motions before
the deals close," they wrote.  "The timing of settlement here was
consistent with similar cases."

The roots of the special counsel report go back to a status
conference on a class action lawsuit connected to the NIghthawk
merger in December during which Vice-Chancellor Laster aimed
blistering remarks at defense counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Delaware.

The vice-chancellor specifically railed against defense tactics in
settling the suit brought in connection with the merger, which was
announced in September 2010.  Mr. Laster said the Nighthawk
defendants had engineered a "classic reverse auction" by
exploiting multiple forums "to force plaintiffs essentially to
constructively reverse-bid for the lowest possible settlement."
The remaining plaintiffs, Mr. Laster said, were then told "to get
on board" a settlement reached in Arizona or lose out on the fees.

The Am Law Daily's colleague Amy Kolz raised the curtain on the
March 11 ruling in the Bar Talk section of this month's edition of
The American Lawyer--a ruling which posed high stakes for Wilson
Sonsini partner David Berger.  "At stake for Berger: his ability
to litigate in the country's most important business court,"
Ms. Kolz wrote.  "At stake for everyone else: the rules and
guidelines for plaintiffs and defense lawyers litigating a
swelling wave of merger-related class actions."

The report concludes that under existing Delaware law, forum-
shopping to secure an advantageous settlement is not an
independent wrong.  Messrs. Williams and Rohrbacher write that
"such forum-shopping should not be equated with a collusive
settlement."

Forum shopping, the report continues, "is often merely a
description of a rational and good-faith pursuit of the client's
best interests."  And though the report says that some elements of
the Nighthawk negotiations "give rise to suspicion" -- including
that defense attorneys negotiated with only one set of plaintiffs'
attorneys with whom they had past dealings while avoiding
negotiations with Delaware plaintiffs counsel -- the special
counsel team concluded the judge "should not impose any remedy on
any attorney in this case."

"[G]iven the conclusion that no collusion occurred in this
settlement, special counsel would not recommend that this Court
take any other remedial action besides -- as it already has --
requiring that the parties keep each forum informed of proceedings
in the other," Messrs. Williams and Rohrbacher write.

Shareholder suits seeking to block corporate mergers surged during
the past year in state and federal court.  According to Securities
Class Action Services, 327 deal-related class actions were filed
last year, compared to only 27 in 2006.  Qualcomm Inc.'s $3.1
billion acquisition of Atheros Communications alone sparked nine
class actions.  "It used to be that in significant [merger] deals,
you would tell the client to expect to be sued," Kirkland & Ellis
partner Yosef Riemer told Ms. Kolz.  "Now you have that
expectation about really small transactions, as well as an
expectation that there will be [suits in] multiple forums."


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Consumer Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative consumer class action complaint filed against Orbitz
Worldwide Inc. in New York remains 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.

On October 1, 2010, a putative consumer class action complaint --
Peluso v. Orbitz.com, Orbitz, LLC (d/b/a Orbitz.com), Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide Development, LLC, Orbitz
Worldwide International, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, et al. --
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
the defendants overbilled customers for hotel occupancy taxes and
sales taxes imposed by the City and State of New York and asserts
claims for violation of New York's deceptive business practices
statute, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On
October 7, 2010, the case was consolidated with similar cases that
were previously filed against other online travel companies.


PARK STREET: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lynn Gray, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
former Short North bartender who is suing Park Street Patio says
she and other employees were forced to share their tips with the
restaurant's managers.

Victoria Zwerin also says that she and other tipped employees at
the Patio, Sugar Bar and The Social bar and lounge were not paid
for overtime hours that they worked and, because their tips were
pooled, did not receive the legally required minimum wage,
according to the lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

"It's really wage theft, stealing from employees, and it's not an
uncommon thing," said Andrew Biller, Ms. Zwerin's attorney.

Defendants in the lawsuit are 533 Short North LLC, which owns Park
Street; Chris Corso and Michael Gallichio, who own and operate the
Patio; and Jennifer Pepper.  Their attorney, James P. Connors,
said Ms. Pepper is a former bartender who sometimes acted as a
manager for the businesses.

Messrs. Corso and Gallichio also owned and managed Sugar Bar, now
the Park Street Saloon, at 525 Park St., and Social, 527 Park St.,
according to court documents.

Under Ohio law, tips can be pooled with other tipped employees'
but not with those of salaried employees such as managers.
Connors denied that managers were part of the tip pool at the
Patio and the nightclubs.  When bartenders worked as managers,
they did not participate in the tip pool and were paid manager
wages and not tipped wages, he said.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour; Ohio's is $7.40, or
$7.25 for ages 14 or 15 and for employees of companies that gross
$271,000 or less yearly.  Employers can pay servers and others who
receive tips an hourly rate of $3.70 as long as their pay with
tips equals the minimum wage.

Mr. Biller and Andrew R. Frisch, a lawyer from Davie, Fla., have
asked the court to allow the case to become a class action.
Frisch's law firm, Morgan & Morgan, handles numerous wage
lawsuits.

Court documents say that more than 100 bartenders and servers work
for Park Street Patio and the other sites run by the same owners.
Those who worked there within the past three years and were not
paid minimum wage will automatically become part of the lawsuit if
the court approves the class-action request.

The lawsuit also asks the judge to award the plaintiffs unpaid
wages and overtime and to order the defendants to stop their
"unlawful practices."

Mr. Connors said his clients will fight all the allegations.

"My clients have a strict policy, well-known to the staff and
management, that the employees were not to work in excess of 40
hours" a week, he said.  He is opposing the motion to turn the
lawsuit into a class action and will ask the judge to dismiss the
entire lawsuit.

Pooled-tip lawsuits have been filed across the country in the past
few years, including ones recently against restaurants in New York
City and against Hard Rock Cafe International in Florida.

In 2008, a San Diego judge ruled that Starbucks' policy of
allowing supervisors to receive a share of pooled tips was
illegal.  The judge ordered Starbucks to pay its California
workers more than $100 million in tips and interest.  That case
had been filed in 2004.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Approval of "Smithtown" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial Inc. is awaiting court approval of an
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company on behalf of Smithtown Bancorp Inc. stockholders,
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.

People's United Financial was named as a defendant in a class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.
stockholders in New York state court (In re Smithtown Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation. The primary claims in the complaint are
directed towards the directors and certain executive officers of
Smithtown, alleging that in approving the merger agreement between
People's United Financial and Smithtown, those individuals did not
maximize shareholder value and agreed to deal protection devices
that impermissibly limit their ability to pursue and accept any
competing offer for Smithtown. People's United Financial is
alleged to have aided and abetted the actions of the individual
defendants. The complaint also alleges that the proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the proposed merger contains
material omissions which, if not cured, would prevent Smithtown
shareholders from casting an informed vote in connection with the
proposed merger. The complaint seeks an order enjoining the
defendants from proceeding with the transaction, other equitable
relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.

On October 12, 2010, all parties to the proceedings entered into
an agreement to settle the litigation. As part of that agreement,
the defendants agreed (without admitting any wrongdoing or other
liability) to make certain additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs in the proxy statement/prospectus. The proposed
settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval,
plaintiffs conducting confirmatory discovery to confirm the
fairness and adequacy of the terms of the settlement and the
additional disclosures relating to the proposed merger, and the
closing of the proposed merger.

Management expects this matter to be resolved in accordance with
the agreement and does not expect the settlement to have a
material effect on the financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity of People's United Financial.


PNM RESOURCES: Unit Awaits Outcome of Appeal in "Begay" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting the outcome of an
administrative appeal filed by a plaintiff in a putative class
action captioned Begay v. Public Service Company of New Mexico, et
al., 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.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
on February 11, 2009 in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque.  Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the
Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.
Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general
assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way
grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are
either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust.  They have also included a breach of trust claim against
the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the
other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.  On
March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.  PNM intends to participate in order to
preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way
implicated in the appeal.  As the administrative appeal process is
only in its initial stages, PNM cannot predict the outcome of the
proceeding at this time.


PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls 325 Rocky Mountain Bicycles
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Procycle Group, Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 325 Rocky Mountain Bicycles, of Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The front fork steering tube can break, posing a fall injury
hazard.

The firm has received four reports of injuries, including three
reports of cuts and scrapes and one report of a broken wrist.

The recalled bicycles have Rocky Mountain Bicycle printed on the
frame.  Only bicycles with certain serial numbers, located on the
bottom side of the bicycle, are included in this recall.  The
recall includes the following bicycles:

                 Model            Year         Color
                 -----            ----         -----
                 Solo CX          2008       Gun metal gray
                 Solo CX          2009       White
                 Solo CX          2010       White
                 Solo CXD         2008       Gun metal gray
                 Solo CXD         2009       Titanium silver
                 Solo CXR         2009       Black
                 Metropolis SEA   2010       Gray

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11727.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold through
bicycle stores and other specialty stores nationwide and on the
Web at www.backcountry.com from June 2007 through November 2010
for between $1,300 and $1,700.

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact
Procycle with your serial number to determine if it is included in
the recall and to arrange for a free replacement of the fork.  For
additional information, contact Procycle toll-free at
(855) 880-9062 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bikes.com/


PROSHARES TRUST II: Class Action Suit in New York Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II continues to defend itself from an amended
class action complaint filed in New York, 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 Trust and certain officers are defendants (along with several
other parties) in a consolidated class action styled In re
ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-cv-6935, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material
facts in the Registration Statement for one or more ProShares
ETFs, allegedly failing to adequately disclose the Funds'
investment objectives and risks. The six Funds of the Trust named
in the complaint are ProShares Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort
Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold, ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil,
ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS Crude Oil, and ProShares UltraShort Silver.
The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.


RADIENT PHARMA: May 10 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation during the period between
Jan. 18, 2001 and March 4, 2011, inclusive, seeking to recover
damages for violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Radient class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against Radient and its officers and directors for materially
misrepresenting the involvement of the prestigious Mayo Clinic in
the Company's clinical trial of Onko-Sure.  On Jan. 18, 2011,
Radient issued a press release announcing "progress on its
clinical study with the Mayo Clinic..."  In connection with the
clinical study, the Company claimed that samples were being tested
by the Company and the Mayo Clinic to directly compare the
efficacy of the Onko-Sure test with another test.  On March 7,
2011, TheStreet.com issued an article refuting claims that the
Mayo Clinic was conducting a clinical trial with Radient.  In the
article, the Mayo Clinic is quoted as stating that: "Mayo is not
engaged in clinical studies with Radient and does not have a
partnership agreement with Radient."  The Mayo Clinic added that:
"The services Mayo was required to provide to Radient have been
fulfilled.  Any clinical study results about Onko-Sure would be
provided by Radient, not Mayo Clinic."  As a result of this
adverse news, the price of Radient stock fell, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 10, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Final Approval of Settlement Expected in 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis is awaiting final court approval of a settlement
that will resolve all class action lawsuits against its affiliate
in Boston this year, 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.

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (API) is a defendant in several U.S.
lawsuits seeking damages on behalf of multiple putative classes of
individuals and entities that allegedly overpaid for certain
pharmaceuticals as a result of the AWP pricing which were used to
set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement levels.  Aventis Behring
and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. were also defendants in some of these
cases.  These suits allege violations of various statutes,
including state unfair trade, unfair competition, consumer
protection and false claim statutes.

A group of eleven defendants, including sanofi-aventis defendants,
reached a tentative global settlement of the claims of the
insurers and consumers, for a total of $125 million.  This
settlement was granted preliminary approval by the U.S. District
Court in Boston in early July 2008.  Subject to the final approval
hearing which is expected in 2011, all the class action suits
against API before the U.S District Court in Boston will be
resolved consistent with the settlement.  The Sanofi-aventis share
of the global settlement is fully covered by existing reserves.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: New Jersey Suit Remains in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action relating to the average whole prices
(AWP) pricing in New Jersey is in discovery phase, according to
Sanofi-Aventis's March 1, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a defendant in several U.S.
lawsuits seeking damages on behalf of multiple putative classes of
individuals and entities that allegedly overpaid for certain
pharmaceuticals as a result of the AWP pricing which were used to
set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement levels.  One additional
purported class action relating to the AWP pricing remains in New
Jersey and is in the discovery phase.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Dismissal of Zimulti/Acomplia Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis' motion to dismiss a purported class action
relating to the effect of Zimulti(R)/Accomplia(R) (rimonabant)
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.

In November 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's shares.  The complaint charged the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that defendants' statements regarding
rimonabant were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants allegedly concealed data concerning rimonabant's
propensity to cause depression.  In September 2009, the motion was
dismissed with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration. On July 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion to
reconsider and authorized plaintiffs to submit an amended
complaint.  In November 2010, the District Court heard arguments
on the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint.
The District Court's decision on the motion to dismiss is pending.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Class Certification Pending in Heartgard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class has not been certified in a lawsuit arising from
Heartgard(R) manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis's animal health
business arm, 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.

On August 31, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Merial Limited, the Company's animal health business arm,
alleging that Merial engaged in false and misleading advertising
of Heartgard(R) and Heartgard(R) Plus by claiming 100% efficacy in
the prevention of heartworm disease, as well as the prevention of
zoonotic diseases.  Plaintiffs also request punitive damages and a
permanent injunction with respect to the alleged advertising.  The
proceedings are ongoing and the class has not been certified yet.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Continues to Defend DDAVP Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis's subsidiary continues to defend itself from eight
putative class actions arising from an alleged scheme to
monopolize the market for DDAVP(R), 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.

Subsequent to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005 holding the patent
rights at issue in the DDAVP(R) tablet litigation to be
unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct, eight putative
class actions have been filed claiming injury as a result of
Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s alleged scheme to
monopolize the market for DDAVP(R) tablets in violation of the
Sherman Act and the antitrust and deceptive trade practices
statutes of several states.  On November 6, 2006, the District
Court dismissed these claims.  Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal
of the decision to dismiss was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit in 2008.  By order dated October 16, 2009,
the appellate court reversed and remanded the case back to the
District Court.  Petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc
were denied.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Continues to Face Thimerosal Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis's subsidiary remains a defendant in lawsuits filed
across the U.S. alleging injuries from the presence of mercury in
thimerosal used in vaccines, 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.

Since early 2001, Sanofi Pasteur Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of the
Company, has been a defendant in lawsuits filed in several federal
and state courts in the United States alleging that serious
personal injuries resulted from the presence of mercury in the
preservative thimerosal, trace amounts of which are contained in
vaccines manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur.

Currently, there are 172 such cases pending.  Several of the cases
seek certification to proceed as class actions.

Sanofi Pasteur believes that under U.S. law, all of these claims
must first be filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to
determine whether the claim qualifies for compensation by the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program before the claimants
may bring direct actions against the company.  The U.S. Court of
Federal Claims has established a process designed to facilitate
the handling of the almost 5,000 thimerosal claims within the
VICP.  The process involves a committee of petitioners'
representatives and representatives of the U.S. Department of
Justice, who represent the government in the VICP.  As originally
planned, the process called for petitioners' representatives to
designate three "test cases" in each of the three different
theories of general causation advanced by the petitioners.
Hearings on two of the theories were completed in 2007 and 2008
and the petitioners decided that there was no need to proceed with
the last theory.

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
affirmed the 2009 decisions of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
in the test cases under the first of the two causation theories,
which held that the petitioners failed to establish that their
claimed injuries were caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines and
the MMR vaccine, and no compensation was awarded to any of them
under the VICP.  The petitioners may choose to file civil actions
against the manufacturers.

In March 2010, in the test cases under the second of the two
causation theories, concerning vaccines containing only
thimerosal, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the
petitioners failed to establish that their claimed injuries were
caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines, and no compensation was
awarded to any of the petitioners under the VICP.  The petitioners
chose not to seek re-hearings on these cases, but instead have
filed elections to file civil actions against the manufacturers.

The remainder of the 172 cases are either in the preliminary
response stage, in the discovery process, have been stayed pending
adjudication by the Claims Court, or have pending plaintiffs'
requests for reconsideration of preliminary determinations to stay
proceedings pending such adjudication by the Claims Court.


SUZUKI MANUFACTURING: Recalls 29,000 Suzuki KingQuad ATVs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Suzuki Manufacturing of America Corporation announced a voluntary
recall of about 29,000 Suzuki KingQuad ATVs.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Some KingQuad ATV's plastic fuel tanks were improperly
manufactured and can develop a fuel leak, posing a fire hazard.

American Suzuki has received 19 reports of fuel leaking from the
recalled ATVs.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall is for the following Suzuki KingQuad models: all 2008
to 2010 LT-A450X models, all 2009 to 2010 LT-A500X models, all
2008 to 2010 LT-A750X models and 2011 LT-A500X and LT-A750X models
manufactured before December 11, 2010.  The words "Suzuki
KingQuad" are on the left and right sides of the fuel tank
housing.  Model numbers are on the left and right lower side
panels above the footrests.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11727.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Suzuki ATV dealers nationwide from July 2007 through
February 2011 for between $6,600 and $9,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using these vehicles and contact
a local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an appointment for a free
repair.  Consumers with 2011 LT-A500X and LT-A750X models should
call their local Suzuki ATV dealer to determine if their ATV is
subject to this recall.  Consumers with recalled ATVs are being
sent a notice directly from Suzuki.  For more information, contact
Suzuki at (800) 444-5077 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Pacific
Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.suzukicycles.com/


SETTLEMENT FUNDING: Sued for Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Brenston, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Settlement Funding, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree
Settlement Funding, et al., Case No. 2011-CH-09238 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. March 10, 2011), seeks redress on behalf of all persons
in Illinois who have: (1) settled personal injury actions that
have resulted in structured settlement agreements that (2) have
entitled them to periodic settlement payments, who thereafter (3)
assigned their settlement benefits to Peachtree, which (4)
purchased the assignment of annuity payments through lump-sum
payments to plaintiff and the class, that were (5) below a fair
discounted present value, and which were (6) approved by an
Illinois court through a court-filed petition.

Settlement Funding is a Georgia limited liability company doing
business in Illinois and elsewhere as a finance company under the
name of Peachtree Settlement Funding.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that defendants filed
petitions for approval of assignments of structured settlement
benefits in counties other than the county where venue was
mandated pursuant to Section 25 of the Illinois Protection Act,
and that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices when it
paid below a discounted present value when it acquired an
assignment of benefits from an Illinois structured settlement
beneficiary.

Plaintiff relates that on January 30, 2003, she settled the
medical negligence lawsuit she filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
against the University of Illinois Hospital & Clinics, et al.,
with the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, by
executing a written settlement Agreement and Release.

The Structured Settlement Agreement identifies 2 structured
settlement payments to be paid to plaintiff, the 2003 periodic
payments, which provide for periodic payments of $5,000 per month
commencing on March 1, 2003, through February 1, 2013, with
payments increasing 3% annually, and the 2013 periodic payments,
which provide for payments of $6,719.58 per month commencing on
March 1, 2013, for the longer of life or through February 1, 2018,
with payments increasing 3% annually.

In connection with the 2003 periodic payments, the University of
Illinois assigned its liability to make these payments to Allstate
Assignment Company.  In connection with the 2013 periodic
payments, University of Illinois assigned its liability to make
these payments to GE Capital Assignment Corporation.

Between November 2006 and March 2008, Peachtree was able to secure
from the plaintiff an assignment of the above described annuity
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Goldberg, Esq.
          JEFFREY M. GOLDBERG LAW OFFICES
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-4146


TELLABS INC: Parties in Ill. Securities Suit Reach Tentative Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., and other parties in a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in Illinois have tentatively agreed to settle
the issues between them, 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.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs).
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All
nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the Company's current or former officers and/or
directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during
the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
Company's financial statements. Further, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the Company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the Company
pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint
seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead. On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint. On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district
court. On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the
district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining
claims. On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United
States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted. The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings. On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings. On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment. The parties have tentatively agreed to settle the
lawsuit, which settlement is still subject to documentation and
court approval. If approved, all settlement amounts will be paid
by Tellabs' insurers.


TEXTRON INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Rhode Island Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Textron, Inc., is still awaiting a court's decision over its
request to dismiss class action lawsuits in Rhode Island,
according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 13, 2009, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in Rhode Island
against Textron, its Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer
and its former Chief Financial Officer. The suit, filed by the
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material
misrepresentations or omissions related to Cessna and TFC. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. In December
2009, the Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund was appointed
lead plaintiff in the case. On February 8, 2010, an amended class
action complaint was filed with the Court. The amended complaint
names as additional defendants TFC and three of its present and
former officers. On April 6, 2010, the court entered a stipulation
agreed to by the parties in which plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice, certain causes of action in the
amended complaint. On April 9, 2010, all defendants moved to
dismiss the remaining counts of the amended complaint, and that
motion is still pending.

On August 21, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court in Rhode Island by Dianne Leach,
an alleged participant in the Textron Savings Plan. Six additional
substantially similar class action lawsuits were subsequently
filed by other individuals. The complaints varyingly name Textron
and certain present and former employees, officers and directors
as defendants. These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated
the United States Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
imprudently permitting participants in the Textron Savings Plan to
invest in Textron common stock. The complaints seek equitable
relief and unspecified compensatory damages. On February 2, 2010,
an amended class action complaint was filed consolidating the
seven previous lawsuits into a single complaint. On March 19,
2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, and that motion is still pending.

On November 18, 2009, a purported derivative lawsuit was filed by
John D. Walker in the United States District Court of Rhode Island
against certain present and former officers and directors of
Textron. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws consistent with the Roseville action, as well as breach of
fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
On February 16, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the
derivative complaint, and that motion is still pending.

Textron believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously.


WAL-MART STORES: Cos. Show Support Ahead of Class Action Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zimmerman and Brent Kendall, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that more than 20 major U.S. companies, ranging
from General Electric Co. to Costco Wholesale Corp., have lined up
to support Wal-Mart Stores Inc. ahead of a March 29 Supreme Court
hearing on one of the largest sex-discrimination suits in history.

Betty Dukes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, leaves a San
Francisco courthouse with her attorney, Steve Tinkler, in
March 2009.

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer,
systematically paid female store workers less than men with
similar or less experience and provided them fewer opportunities
for promotion.  The plaintiffs are seeking back pay and punitive
damages.

But the high court, in what may be the biggest business case of
its 2010-2011 term, won't be ruling on the merits of the suit.
Instead, it will weigh whether the plaintiffs -- potentially more
than a million women who worked in 170 kinds of jobs across 3,400
stores -- have enough in common to be considered a "class" whose
complaints can be combined into a single lawsuit, rather than a
series of separate suits.

The company's corporate supporters argue in their briefs to the
high court that allowing the suit to proceed as a class action
would "open the floodgates" for similar suits and force big firms
to settle "even meritless claims because the potential exposure is
too high."

Wal-Mart, which could face billions of dollars in damages, said at
a media briefing on March 10 that the plaintiffs offer a
kaleidoscope of claims and it would be unreasonable to force the
company to defend itself against such a variety of charges in a
single legal action.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., Wal-Mart's lead counsel in the suit, said
anecdotes cited by the plaintiffs -- such as district managers
holding meetings at a Hooters restaurant -- didn't reflect company
practices.  "It's so far from being representative that it's
absurd," he said.

Mr. Boutrous called the suit part of a legal experiment in which
plaintiffs throw together a combination of broad statistics about
wages and promotions, as well as sociology and anecdotes, in an
effort to create "instant class actions."

The plaintiffs contend that their experiences reflected a
corporate culture "rife with gender stereotypes," according to
their Supreme Court brief.

Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart greeter in Pittsburg, Calif., who has
worked for the company since 1994, said she has been paid
significantly less than men with less seniority performing similar
work, including in her present job, and was passed over for
several promotions.

Christine Kwapnoski, a longtime employee of Wal-Mart's Sam's Club
warehouse-club unit, said she was told by her manager that a male
co-worker received a large raise "because [he] had a family to
support."

"Well, so did I," Ms. Kwapnoski said.  "I am a single mother."

"This case follows along a well-trod path, cleared by earlier
decisions by the Supreme Court," said lead plaintiffs' counsel
Joseph Sellers on Thursday.  "What makes this unusual is its size,
and there is no specific set of rules that exempts a company from
civil-rights laws based on its size."

The suit has attracted a blizzard of friend-of-the-court briefs on
both sides, including from civil-rights groups backing the
plaintiffs.  One party sitting out the matter is the solicitor
general, the Obama administration's lawyer at the Supreme Court,
who chose not to file a brief.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the plaintiffs'
side when the suit was at a federal appellate court in California.
That court ruled 6-5 in favor of the plaintiffs.

John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the
plaintiffs face an uphill fight because their proposed class is so
diverse.  "In recent Supreme Court decisions, class actions have
to have a little internal cohesion that this case lacks," he said.

But he said the justices might allow "scaled-down" suits, perhaps
permitting Wal-Mart employees to band together based on region or
job type.

The class size is in dispute and would depend on whether former
workers could be included.  The size could vary from about half a
million to more than a million women.

One issue in the case is whether back pay can be awarded in a fair
and manageable fashion.  Lower courts have upheld the use of
economic models to calculate back pay, and "if the Supreme Court
says no, the result will have a sweeping and devastating impact"
on class actions, said Mr. Coffee.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
Weatherford International Ltd., has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Weatherford between
April 25, 2007 and March 1, 2011, inclusive.

Weatherford provides equipment and services to independent oil and
natural gas producing companies worldwide for the drilling,
evaluation, completion, production and intervention of oil and
natural gas wells.  The Complaint alleges that Weatherford and
certain of its executive officers knew or recklessly disregarded
that their Class Period statements concerning Weatherford's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading, including: (1) that the Company improperly accounted
for income taxes relating to intercompany amounts and foreign tax
assets; (2) as a result, the Company's financial results were
materially misstated during the Class Period; (3) that the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4), that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased Weatherford securities between
April 25, 2007 and March 1, 2011, you have certain rights and have
until May 9, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and
you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by
telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/

Contacts: Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
                     (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Catazarite Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Catanzarite Law Corporation disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Weatherford
International, Ltd. common stock during the period from April 25,
2007 through March 1, 2011, inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and seeks to recover
losses for Weatherford shareholders.

To join the Weatherford class action, call Ken Catanzarite, Esq.
or Jenifer De Vera at 714-520-5544 or email
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or jdevera@catanzarite.com for
information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.  YOU MAY
RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, charges Weatherford and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
overstating earnings by an estimated $400 million to $600 million
for the period from 2007 through 2010, and also because of the
related deficiencies in internal controls, the market price of
Weatherford stock was artificially inflated.  Had the negative
information been disclosed, the market price of Weatherford stock
would have been much lower.  Absent the failure to disclose this
negative information, plaintiffs would not have purchased
Weatherford stock or warrants or they would have purchased
Weatherford stock and warrants at a much lower price.  The
Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs paid an artificially inflated
price for the Weatherford shares and warrants because defendants
omitted to state material facts necessary to make the public
statements made by defendants not misleading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Weatherford common stock during the Class Period.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of
Weatherford shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than May 10, 2011.  If you wish
to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Ken Catanzarite, Esq. or Jenifer De Vera of Catanzarite Law
Corporation at 714-520-5544or via e-mail at
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or jdevera@catanzarite.com

The Catanzarite Law Corporation is an Orange County based law firm
representing investors across the nation in shareholder and
securities litigation.

Contact: Ken Catanzarite, Esq.
         JENIFER DE VERA CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
         Telephone: 714-520-5544
         2331 West Lincoln Avenue
         Anaheim, CA 92801


WEBMD HEALTH: Awaits Final Approval of "TCPA" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. is awaiting final court approval of an
agreement to settle an amended complaint filed against its
subsidiaries in Connecticut, 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, a lawsuit was filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye (and
Roger H. Kaye MD PC) individually, and as an alleged class action,
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under a similar
Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the Company. The lawsuit
claims that faxes allegedly sent during the period from August 1,
2006 to the present by subsidiaries of the Company and by The
Little Blue Book business that the Company sold in September 2009
were sent in violation of the TCPA and the Connecticut statute.
With respect to the TCPA claims, the lawsuit seeks statutory
damages in excess of $5,000 for each of two classes of plaintiffs,
and a trebling of those damages. With respect to the claims under
the Connecticut statute, under which trebling is unavailable, the
lawsuit additionally seeks an undetermined amount of damages. In
April 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same claims as were asserted in the original
complaint. The Company's subsidiaries have filed their answer as
well as a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice on the
grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and also
filed a motion to stay discovery, which was granted pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss. On July 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss and ordered that class-related
discovery should proceed, while continuing a stay of full merits
discovery. The parties have agreed on terms to settle the matter.
On December 16, 2010, the Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement
is subject to final approval by the Court. The Company believes
that any costs related to this litigation are covered by
insurance, subject to the Company's deductible.


WEBMD HEALTH: Subsidiaries Face Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp.'s subsidiaries are defending themselves from a
lawsuit in connection with the distribution of software
applications for mobile devices through Apple Inc.'s store,
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.

On February 17, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint in a
lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs are seeking to
have the case certified as a class action. The complaint alleges
that Apple, Inc. and several other defendants, including one or
more subsidiaries of the Company, have violated several Federal
and California statues and are also liable under various common
law claims in connection with the distribution of software
applications for mobile devices through Apple's iTunes store. The
Federal Statutes that are alleged to have been violated are the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030; and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as damages in
unspecified amounts. The Company is in the process of reviewing
the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the Plaintiffs' claims against it.


WHITNEY HOLDING: Continues to Defend "De LaPouyade" Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Holding Corporation remains a defendant in a putative
class action captioned De LaPouyade v. Whitney Holding
Corporation, et al. in Louisiana, 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 January 7, 2011, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit,
De LaPouyade v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-
189, was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans of the State of Louisiana against the Company and members
of its board of directors asserting that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties and/or violated Louisiana state law and
that the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the merger.  On February 17, 2011, a complaint in intervention was
filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement
System in the De LaPouyade case.  The MPERS complaint is
substantially identical to and seeks to join in the De LaPouyade
complaint.


WHITNEY HOLDING: Certification in Realistic Partners Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification in a putative shareholder class action against
Whitney Holding Corporation in a Louisiana federal court is still
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 February 7, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Realistic Partners v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00256, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the
Company, members of its board of directors, and Hancock asserting
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, breach of fiduciary duty under Louisiana state law, and
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  Among other relief,
the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.  On February 24, 2011,
the plaintiff moved for class certification.


XENOPORT INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for May 20
---------------------------------------------------------
A California court will consider XenoPort, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action on May 20, 2011, 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 July 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as defendants.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in
connection with allegedly false, misleading and incomplete
statements issued by the Company related to Horizant as a
potential treatment of RLS, which allegedly made it impossible for
investors to meaningfully understand the drug's potential for FDA
approval.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
disclose information regarding previous results in lab rats
treated with gabapentin showing an increased risk of pancreatic
acinar cell tumors, which plaintiff alleges presented a risk that
the FDA would not approve Horizant/gabapentin enacarbil for the
treatment of RLS.  The plaintiff seeks damages, an award of its
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief on behalf of a
purported class of stockholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between May 5, 2009 and February 17, 2010.
Another lawsuit was filed in September 2010 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California making
substantially similar allegations, on behalf of a purported class
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between March 16, 2009 and May 5, 2010.  A motion to
consolidate the complaints and appoint a lead plaintiff was
granted in November 2010, and the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint in January 2011.  In February 2011, the
Company responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss.  The
lead plaintiff's opposition brief to the Company's motion is due
on April 4, 2011.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently
scheduled for May 20, 2011.  It is possible that additional suits
will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with
respect to these same matters and also naming the Company or its
officers and directors as defendants.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intend
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual cost of defending the lawsuit will depend upon many unknown
factors.  The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain,
the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense of the lawsuit and the Company may not prevail.
Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time-consuming
for the Company's management and detracts from the Company's
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 able to estimate the possible cost to it from these matters,
as this lawsuit is currently at an early stage and the Company
cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters 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 the 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 the action could result in the payment
of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's cash flow, results of
operations and financial position.  In addition, the uncertainty
of the pending litigation could lead to more volatility in the
Company's stock price.


                            *********

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  * * *