CAR_Public/110317.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 54

                             Headlines

ACCELERATED SERVICES: Sued in Calif. Over "Snake Oil Warranties"
ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bang" Suit Over Acurox Remains Pending
ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Arkansas
BALTIMORE GAS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: Clients Can Proceed With Class Action

BOEING: Class Action Tossed After "Confidential Witness" Recants
BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Lawsuits
CAPITAL ONE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Rubio" Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Obtained Final Okay of "Spinelli" Suit Settlement
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Still Pending

CEDAR FAIR: "Mortiz" Suit Over Apollo Merger Remains Pending
CELGENE CORPORATION: Abraxis Shareholder Lawsuit Still Pending
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Class Suit in New York Still Pending
CVB FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif.
DEAN FOODS: Trial in "Dairy Farmer" Suits Set for June

DEAN FOODS: Awaits Court Okay of "Indirect Purchaser" Suits Deal
DELPHI FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement
DEMETRIOS KATSARAS: Sued for Violation of Illinois Statute
DONALDSON CO: MDL Against Filter Manufacturers Remains Pending
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final Administration of Settlement

FOSTER POULTRY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FRASER MILNER: Sued Over Failed Donation Tax Shelter
GENERAL MOTORS: Pension Fund Case Over GM Merger Dismissed
GENZYME CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Research Coverage Lawsuits

GOLDMAN SACHS: Specialist Class Action Suits Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Treasury Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Refco Litigation Settlement Approved in Oct. 2010
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Related Lawsuits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Lawsuit Over Hudson CDO Securities Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Washington Mutual Securities Suit Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene Securities Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Wage & Hour Suit in New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Discrimination Suit in New York
HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets March 18 Case Conference on Chavez Suit

HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets April 14 Hearing in Amended Cunha Suit
HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in California
HUGHES NETWORK: Faces Lawsuits Over EchoStar Merger
KABA ILCO: Lead Counsel Appointed in Simplex Lock Class Actions

KKR & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Violation Suit in Mass.
KKR & CO: SEC Seeks Information on Del Monte Acquisition
KKR & CO: Time to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit Has Passed
KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Haley Paint Suit Still Pending in Maryland
LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend Alaska Workers' Suit

LOUISIANA: Public Defender Board Sued Over $35 Statutory Fee
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling on Texas Suit Appeal Before June
M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall
MASSEY COAL: Trial Held on Medical Monitoring Class Action
MASSEY ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Two Securities Suits Pending

MATCH.COM LLC: Accused of Misrepresenting Number of Active Members
MBIA INC: 2005 Securities Suit Remanded to New York District Court
MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
MBIA INC: Aurelius Suit Stayed Pending ABN AMRO Appeal
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Pending

MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Seeks Dismissal of Second "Tipsword" Complaint
MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Still Defends "Kurrus" Suit in Illinois
MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Case Still Pending in District of Columbia

MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Lockout
NATIONAL PENN: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Ventas Merger
NETFLIX INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Deaf Members

NEUROMETRIX: Appeal From Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending
NEW MEXICO GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Outage
NGAS RESOURCES: Awaits Court Approval of Kentucky Suit Settlement
PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Removing adultBasic Health Care Program
POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities & ERISA Class Actions

POWER BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising in Violation of CLRA
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending
RADIAN GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Filed Against Unit
SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Okay of South Carolina Suit Settlement
SINGAPORE AIR: May Opt for Settlement in Surcharges Class Action

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend "Highstein" Suit
TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Amends Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger
TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Highlander Hybrid Inverter
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Suit vs. TEP Remain Pending

UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests
USA TRUCK: Expects Approval of Suit Settlement Later This Year
VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement
VERENIUM CORP: Appeals in Shareholder Suit Remain Pending
VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Calif. Suit to be Heard on April 22

VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Brookshire Suit to be Heard on March 30
VIVUS INC: Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Consolidated Suit Over Sale to M&T Bank Pending
WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals in Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending
ZORAN CORP: Faces Two Class Suits Relating to CSR Merger

* Individuals Can't Settle Class Action After Certification
* U.S. For-Profit Colleges Face Class Actions From Students



                             *********

ACCELERATED SERVICES: Sued in Calif. Over "Snake Oil Warranties"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Accelerated Services International aka Choice Manufacturing Co.,
and National Dealer Warranties Canadian Auto Warranty Services aka
National Dealer Warranty aka Stop Repair Bills.com sell "snake oil
warranties" for auto parts.

A copy of the Complaint in Sanders v. Accelerated Services
International, et al., Case No. 11-00571 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Contra Costa Cty.), is available at:

   http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/SnakeOil.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bang" Suit Over Acurox Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself against an
Illinois class action lawsuit commenced over Acurox(R).

A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al., was
filed on September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case
1:10-cv-05757, against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 21, 2006 and April 22, 2010.  The complaint
alleges that certain of the Company's officers made false or
misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts in
order to make statements not misleading, relating to the Company's
Acurox(R) with Niacin Tablets product candidate, resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The complaint further alleges that such false or
misleading statements or omissions had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.  On January 11,
2011, the Court appointed a group of three stockholders as Lead
Plaintiffs.  The Lead Plaintiffs have not yet filed their amended
complaint.

No further updates were reported in 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 believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.

Acura Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in research, development and manufacture of product
candidates intended to provide abuse deterrent features and
benefits utilizing the Company's proprietary Aversion(R) and
Impede(TM) Technologies.


ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action complaint filed in Arkansas, according to the Company's
March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center. The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
residents of the Facility over the past five years. The lawsuit
remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the
court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


BALTIMORE GAS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's parent remains pending in a
Maryland district court, according to the Company's March 1, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of
Constellation Energy Group between January 30, 2008 and
September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering
completed in June 2008. The securities class actions generally
allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or
former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the
securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's
June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class actions
also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading
statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which
contradicted public statements including in connection with its
announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of
2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and
the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities
class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases
as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred
for coordination with the securities class action filed there.
On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
a consolidated amended complaint on September 17, 2009. On
November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the suit to those persons
who purchased debentures in the June 2008 offering. The Company is
unable at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of the
securities class actions or their possible effect on Constellation
Energy's, or BGE's financial results.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. -- http://www.bge.com/-- provides
electricity and natural gas services without having to pull
anyone's finger.  The company not only provides services in
Baltimore, but to all or parts of 10 surrounding central Maryland
counties as well in a service area of 2,300 square miles.  The
company's regulated power transmission and distribution system
consists of 24,500 circuit miles of distribution lines, and 1,300
circuit miles of transmission lines, and serves more than 1.2
million customers; its gas system serves 648,900 homes and
businesses in an 800- square-mile service area.  BGE is a
subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.


BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: Clients Can Proceed With Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that litigators
involved in a Great Southern class action against Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank have been given the go ahead to file a statement of
claim.

A Supreme Court judge has cleared the way for 2000 Great Southern
clients to proceed with class action claims against Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank over unpaid loans.

On March 11, Victorian Supreme Court judge Justice Clyde Croft
said investors in the 2005 and 2006 Great Southern plantation
schemes had earned the right to move ahead with their claims under
various provisions of the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act.

Macpherson + Kelley (M+K) principal accredited commercial
litigation specialist Ron Willemsen said the March 11 decision now
allowed the firm to file its amended statement of claim and was a
huge result for clients.

"This very significant breakthrough now clears the path for
similarly based claims to be filed for all the scheme types sold
by Great Southern through the years 2005 to 2008," Mr. Willemsen
said.

He said many of the clients who invested in that project borrowed
money from Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd. and continued to
challenge the validity of the loans, including the loans which
were subsequently sold to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank or Javelin
Asset Management.

Mr. Willemsen said according to an announcement to the Australian
Securities Exchange on Aug. 4, 2009, the bank's exposure to
borrowers in Great Southern managed investment schemes stood at
about $550 million.

"Those investors who are represented by Macpherson + Kelley will
now press ahead with their available claims which, if ultimately
successful, could see orders made declaring the subject loans void
and requiring Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and others to fully or
partially refund money previously paid under those loans," he
said.

"The outcome will depend on proof that Great Southern Finance as
the company which originated the loans acted unlawfully during the
course of procuring and establishing those loans."

He said the class action case would also be looking to the
directors of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd. -- John Young,
Cameron Rhodes and Philip Butlin -- and the company itself for an
award of damages on behalf of cash investors.

The case for cash investors would be based on claims ordinarily
covered by professional indemnity insurance policies, he said.

Great Southern's sales revenue from just the 2005 plantation
scheme alone was $241 million in its financial year ended 30
September 2005, M+K said.

In December last year, M+K was ordered to pass on an amended
statement of claim to legal representatives of Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank after the banking group was successful in striking
out select information in the litigator's statement of claim.


BOEING: Class Action Tossed After "Confidential Witness" Recants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes' Full Disclosure, reports that
with so much stock-market volatility and thus companies to sue,
it's understandable that class-action attorneys can feel a little
overworked.  That must explain why Robbins Geller, successor to
the firm founded by convicted felon Bill Lerach, filed a pleading
in federal court that included false allegations from a
"confidential witness" who wasn't.

A federal judge in Chicago tossed the suit against Boeing after
defense lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell dug up the witness, deposed
him, and found out he couldn't have known about undisclosed
structural problems with the 787 Dreamliner that plaintiffs blamed
for a precipitous drop in Boeing shares.  Plaintiff lawyers
claimed the witness, Bishnujee Singh, was a former Boeing senior
structural analyst and chief engineer who worked on the 787
problem.  According to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Suzannne
Conlon, "he was employed as a line engineer by an outside
contractor doing work at Boeing three or four months after the
events in issue."

Like most securities suits, this one accused Boeing of hiding
important information from shareholders which, when disclosed,
caused the stock price to fall.

The rise of the "confidential witness" can be traced to the Public
Securities Litigation Reform Act and subsequent Supreme Court
rulings, under which class-action lawyers are required to do more
than just point out the obvious, that a stock price fell.  They
need to state "particularized facts" giving a strong inference
that somebody in management, not just a faceless corporate entity,
did something he or she knew was fraudulent.

To get over this hurdle, class-action lawyers frequently call upon
nameless "confidential witnesses" who apparently are willing to
speak with plaintiff lawyers but live in fear of their identities
being revealed to anyone else.  In another example of pleading
malfunction, Law.com reports that last year lawyers at Milberg (it
dropped the "Weiss" from its name after founder Mel Weiss went to
jail) were reprimanded for including misleading statements
attributed to confidential witnesses in a lawsuit against Sony.


BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits filed over its merger with a subsidiary of
Caterpillar, Inc., 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.

Between November 16, 2010 and December 30, 2010, six putative
class actions -- five in Wisconsin Circuit Court and one in
Delaware Chancery Court -- were filed concerning the proposed
merger between Badger Merger Sub., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Caterpillar Inc., and the Company.

On November 16, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
each of the Company's directors, Caterpillar Inc., and Badger
Merger Sub. The case is captioned Evelyn Greenberg, et al. v.
Bucyrus International, Inc., et al. Wisconsin Circuit Court,
Milwaukee County, Case No. 10CV19342. The lawsuit was filed by a
person claiming she is a stockholder of ours and purporting to act
on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly situated
stockholders. Two other putative class actions were filed on the
same date against the same defendants in the same court in
Wisconsin; another putative class action was also filed in the
same court on November 19, 2010. These cases have been removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin and are captioned Evelyn Greenberg, et al. v. Bucyrus
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1103-CNC; Daniel
Himmel, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-CV-1104-CNC; Thomas Turberg, et al. v. Bucyrus International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1105-CNC; and City of Sterling
Heights Police & Fire Retirement System, et al. v. Bucyrus
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1106-CNC. On December
30, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and each of the
Company's directors, Caterpillar Inc., and Badger Merger Sub Inc.,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin and is captioned Edmund J. Impens, et al. v. Sullivan,
et. al., Case No. 10-CV-1179-CNC.

In addition, on November 17, 2010, a putative class action was
filed in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Margaret C.
Richardson, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5998, against the Company and each of the Company's directors
and Caterpillar Inc.

In each of the actions, the plaintiffs allege that, by approving
the merger agreement, the Company's directors allegedly violated a
fiduciary duty owed to the Company's stockholders because the
price to be paid pursuant to the merger agreement is allegedly
inadequate and the process through which it was obtained was
allegedly unfair. The plaintiffs further allege that Caterpillar
Inc. aided and abetted such alleged violations. Plaintiffs allege
that the class has and will be damaged by these breaches of duty,
and that the class is entitled to an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

On December 14, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Greenberg and Turberg
actions amended their complaints, restating their claims of breach
of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty. They also added claims that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act by allegedly issuing a misleading proxy statement,
and that the individual defendants had "controlling person"
liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act with
respect to the proxy statement. On December 28, 2010, the Company
filed motions to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim. A briefing schedule has been set.

On December 20, 2010, the plaintiffs in the City of Sterling
Heights action amended their complaint, adding claims that the
individual defendants and Caterpillar, Inc. violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On January 3,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss asserting that
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. A briefing schedule has
been set.

On December 21, 2010, the plaintiffs in Himmel, filed a motion for
remand to state court instead of filing an amended complaint. A
briefing schedule has been set.

The Company, Caterpillar Inc. and Badger Merger Sub believe the
actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


CAPITAL ONE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Rubio" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal an appellate court's ruling
in the class action lawsuit entitled Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
according to Capital One Financial Corporation'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, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of Capital One Bank (USA),
National Associtation, in Rubio v. Capital One Bank, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in 2007.  The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative
class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations and
violated the Truth In Lending Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law when it raised interest rates on certain credit
card accounts.  The District Court granted COBNA's motion to
dismiss all claims as a matter of law prior to any discovery.  On
appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal
with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back
to the District Court for further proceedings.   The Ninth Circuit
upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim,
finding that COBNA was contractually allowed to increase interest
rates.  In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied COBNA's
Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.  In January,
2011, COBNA filed a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

                          About Capital One

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Obtained Final Okay of "Spinelli" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued
a final approval order of the settlement resolving the issues
raised in the class action lawsuit entitled Spinelli v. Capital
One Bank, et al., according to Capital One Financial Corporation's
March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida certified a statewide class action in Spinelli v.
Capital One Bank, et al. with respect to the marketing of the
payment protection product in Florida. In May 2010, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied COBNA's and COSI's
petition for interlocutory review of the class certification
order, allowing the case to proceed toward the summary judgment
stage.  In May 2010, COBNA and COSI entered into a preliminary
global settlement with the various putative class counsel in The
Payment Protection Class Actions. In August 2010, the Florida
federal court issued a preliminary approval order for the
settlement.  After hearings in November and December, 2010, the
Florida federal court issued a final approval order for the
settlement.  The Company believes the total expected costs of the
settlement will be within the non-material litigation reserve
amount established in the second quarter of 2010, and as a result,
it does not believe the amount necessary to resolve the litigation
will be material to its financial conditions or results of
operations.

                          About Capital One

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, styled Leathermon, et al., v. Grandview
Memorial Gardens Inc., et al., filed against the subsidiaries of
Carriage Services Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's
March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a punitive class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana -- including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001 -- on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs claim that the cemetery
owners performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs'
contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The
Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and
after the Company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the
case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to
the Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly
before Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class
representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other
claims. The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In
April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel
from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On March 31,
2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel. In that order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60
days within which to retain new counsel. In addition, all
discovery has been stayed and all pending motions including
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint and
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification were dismissed without
prejudice to re-file with leave of Court upon retention of new
counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief
from the trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On
May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of
mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs'
petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's
order, the Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in
which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their
behalf. Plaintiffs have now retained new counsel and the trial
Court provided the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel ninety 90
days to review the case and 120 days to advise the Court with
respect to whether or not Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend
their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they will seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification. Following the expiration of the 120 days,
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new allegations
as well as change the proposed class representatives. Defendants
have filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. Carriage intends
to defend this action vigorously. Because the lawsuit is in its
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the Company or to estimate
the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time.


CEDAR FAIR: "Mortiz" Suit Over Apollo Merger Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, LP, continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint related to the Company's merger agreement with Apollo
Management, according to the Partnership'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 5, 2010, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by
Leo Mortiz, a unitholder, on behalf of himself and all other
unitholders of the Company, against the Company seeking to enjoin
the merger agreement with Apollo Management and its related
affiliates, and alleging that the preliminary proxy statement
regarding the merger on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 2010, was materially misleading
in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case is
still pending but is currently dormant.  On February 18, 2011 the
Court issued an order granting the Plaintiff 10 days to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the
claim.

The Company does not expect the pending lawsuit to materially
affect its financial results in future periods.

Cedar Fair, together with its affiliated companies, is a publicly
traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1987 and managed by
Cedar Fair Management, Inc..  The Partnership is one of the
largest regional amusement park operators in the world and owns
eleven amusement parks, six outdoor water parks, one indoor water
park and five hotels.


CELGENE CORPORATION: Abraxis Shareholder Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaints related to Celgene Corporation's
October 2010 acquisition of Abraxis BioScience, Inc., remain
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.

Abraxis, the members of the Abraxis board of directors and Celgene
are named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits brought
by Abraxis stockholders challenging the Abraxis acquisition in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.  The plaintiffs in such actions
assert claims for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the
acquisition and allege that Abraxis' directors engaged in self-
dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits and failed
to provide stockholders with material information relating to the
acquisition.  The plaintiffs also allege claims for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and
Abraxis.

On September 14, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the actions pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding, or the MOU.  Without admitting the validity of any
allegations made in the actions, or any liability with respect
thereto, the defendants elected to settle the actions in order to
avoid the cost, disruption and distraction of further litigation.
Under the MOU, the defendants agreed, among other things, to make
additional disclosures relating to the acquisition, and to provide
the plaintiffs' counsel with limited discovery to confirm the
fairness and adequacy of the settlement.  Abraxis, on behalf of
itself and for the benefit of the other defendants in the actions,
also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' counsel $600,000 for their fees
and expenses.  Plaintiffs agreed to release all claims against the
Company and Abraxis relating to the Company's acquisition of
Abraxis, except claims to enforce the settlement or properly
perfected claims for appraisal in connection with the acquisition
of Abraxis by the Company.

On November 15, 2010, the parties executed and filed a stipulation
and settlement with the Court and plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  On Jan. 26,
2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, certified the class for
settlement purposes only and approved the form of notice of the
settlement of the class action.

Celgene and its subsidiaries is a global integrated
biopharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the discovery,
development and commercialization of innovative therapies designed
to treat cancer and immune-inflammatory related diseases.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Class Suit in New York Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit filed against Chesapeake Energy
Corporation remains pending in New York 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 February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11,
2009, alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on
September 2, 2010.

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


CVB FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit 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 August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (Chief Financial
Officer) are also named as defendants. The complaint alleges
violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely
affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which
is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief in favor of
the purported class.

On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company in an action captioned
Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The Englund complaint, which names the same defendants
as the Lloyd complaint, makes allegations that are substantially
similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and
approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel. The
Company expects the Jacksonville Fund to file a consolidated
complaint, which was due to be filed by March 7, 2011. A response
from the Company is due to be filed 30 days after the filing of a
consolidated complaint.


DEAN FOODS: Trial in "Dairy Farmer" Suits Set for June
------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuits filed by dairy farmers against
Dean Foods Company and several others in the milk industry is set
to begin in June 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.

The Company was named, among several defendants, in two purported
class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities.  A third purported class action
antitrust complaint was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Greeneville Division. The complaint in the retailer action was
amended on March 28, 2008. The amended complaint alleges generally
that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction with
others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers. Plaintiffs in both the dairy farmer
actions and the retailer action are seeking damages for the
alleged violations. If plaintiffs are successful and the Company
is judged to have violated the antitrust laws, plaintiffs are
entitled to three times the damages caused by the violations
found. Four additional purported class action complaints were
filed on August 27, 2007, October 3, 2007, November 15, 2007 and
February 13, 2008 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. The
allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy
farmer actions.

On January 7, 2008, a United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the pending cases to
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  On
April 1, 2008, the Eastern District Court ordered the
consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions, and ordered the
retailer action to be administratively coordinated with the
consolidated dairy farmer actions. A motion to dismiss the dairy
farmer actions was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on
June 20, 2008. A motion to dismiss the retailer action was denied
on July 27, 2009. Motions for class certification were filed in
both actions on May 1, 2009. The motion for class certification in
the dairy farmer action was granted on September 7, 2010. A
petition seeking leave to appeal that decision was filed with the
Sixth Circuit on September 21, 2010 and is currently pending.

On June 29, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf
of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk.  The
allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer
action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the
allegations in this complaint substantially overlap with the
allegations in the retailer action, on September 1, 2009, the
Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in
the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary
judgment motions in the retailer action.

The motion for class certification in the retailer action is still
pending. A motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part on August 4, 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and
filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining claims on September 27, 2010. Those motions are
currently pending before the court. A motion for summary judgment
in the dairy farmer action was filed on July 27, 2010 and remains
pending. Fact discovery and expert discovery are complete in these
matters, and expert reports have been submitted. Presently, trial
in the dairy farmer action is scheduled to begin in June 2011. If
the Sixth Circuit grants the petition to appeal the class
certification motion, the Company expects that the trial will be
postponed. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  The company WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy
products.


DEAN FOODS: Awaits Court Okay of "Indirect Purchaser" Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving issues alleged in the class action lawsuit filed by
indirect purchasers of the Company's milk, 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 October 8, 2009, the Company was named, among several
defendants, in a purported class action antitrust complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.
The original complaint was amended on January 21, 2010, and
contained allegations similar in nature to that of the class
action lawsuit filed by dairy farmer and alleges generally that
the Company and others in the milk industry worked together to
limit the price dairy farmers in the Northeastern United States
are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to
fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. A second similar
complaint was filed by a different plaintiff on January 14, 2010.
The Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle
all claims against the Company in this action. The settlement
agreement is subject to court approval, and multiple motions
related to the settlement agreement are currently pending before
the court. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the agreement as proposed by the parties. Pursuant to the
agreement the Company would be obligated to pay $30 million, and
would agree to other terms and conditions with respect to its raw
milk procurement activities at certain of its processing plants
located in the Northeast.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  The company WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy
products.


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Reliance Standard Life Insurance, a subsidiary of Delphi Financial
Group, Inc., is awaiting a court's decision on a negotiated
settlement of a Mississippi class action complaint related to
insurance policy payments, according to Delphi's March 1, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the
Company's subsidiary, RSLIC.  The action challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The parties have entered
into an agreement to settle this litigation, which is subject to
the approval of the court, and have filed a motion with the court
seeking such approval.  It is not anticipated that this
settlement, if approved and effectuated, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.


DEMETRIOS KATSARAS: Sued for Violation of Illinois Statute
----------------------------------------------------------
Serena Lofton, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Demetrios Katsaros, M.D., d/b/a ChicagoLand Center for
Cosmetics and Surgery, Case No. 2011-CH-09310 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. March 11, 2011), charges Dr. Katsaros over the publication of
photographs taken of her body for commercial purposes without her
written consent, in violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act.

Demetrios Katsaros, M.D., is a cosmetic surgeon who performs
surgical procedures upon patients including, but not limited to
breast augmentation and liposuction procedures.

Plaintiff relates that she underwent a liposuction procedure of
her torso in March 2009 and was photographed both before and after
the procedure.  In June 2010, however, she found out that the
various "before and after" photographs of her torso were being
displayed on Defendant's Web site.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Barr, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAM L. BARR, LTD.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
          55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209


DONALDSON CO: MDL Against Filter Manufacturers Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation against filter manufacturers,
including Donaldson Company, Inc., remains pending in Illinois,
according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit seeks
various remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages
of an unspecified amount and is a purported class action on behalf
of direct purchasers of automotive aftermarket filters from the
defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf
of a variety of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of
jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S. cases have
been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the
Northern District of Illinois.  In addition, on April 16, 2009,
the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
based on these same allegations.  The Company will vigorously
defend the claims raised in these lawsuits.  The Company
understands that the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) was investigating the allegations raised in these
suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation.
The Company has not been contacted by the DOJ in connection with
the DOJ investigation, but public reports indicate that the DOJ
officially closed that investigation in January 2010.

In June 2010, the United States gave notice of its election to
decline intervention in a qui tam action entitled United States of
America, ex rel. William G. Burch v. Champion Laboratories, Inc.
et al., which had been filed under seal in December 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.  After that notice, the matter no longer remained under
seal.  In August 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a
purported class action entitled County of Suffolk, New York, v.
Champion Laboratories, et al., in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  Both the Burch qui tam
action and the Suffolk action contain allegations similar to those
made in the multi-district litigation already pending in the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Company denies any liability in either action and intends to
vigorously defend the claims raised in these lawsuits.  In June
2010, the Attorney General of the State of Washington served the
Company with a Civil Investigative Demand inquiring into the same
issues as those raised in the complaint filed by the State of
Florida.  The Company is cooperating with the Washington
investigation but has denied any wrongdoing.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final Administration of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc., is awaiting the final administration of
the terms of its settlement with its former employees, who
commenced a class action against it in Washington, according to
the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 201.

In May 2009, Dycom Industries, Inc., and Prince Telecom LLC were
named as defendants in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.  The plaintiffs, all former
employees of the subsidiary, alleged various wage and hour claims,
including that employees were not paid for all hours worked and
were subject to improper wage deductions.  Plaintiffs sought to
certify as a class current and former employees of the subsidiary
who worked in the State of Washington.  The Company estimated the
liability of the proposed settlement at $2.0 million and recorded
a pre-tax charge for this amount during the quarter ended
October 24, 2009.  In November 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys,
the Company and the subsidiary entered into a memorandum of
understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed to the terms of
a proposed settlement with respect to the lawsuit.

In January 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  Notice of the terms of the proposed
settlement and claim forms were mailed to members of the
plaintiffs' class in February 2010.  The Court held a hearing
regarding the plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement in April 2010, at which time it entered an Order
approving the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice
subject to final administration of the terms of the settlement.
Excluding legal expenses of the Company, approximately $1.6
million was incurred pursuant to the settlement and was paid in
June 2010.


FOSTER POULTRY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses
Foster Poultry Farms of failing to pay overtime and regular wages,
among other things.

A copy of the Complaint in Avalos v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11CECG00784 (Calif. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Jason P. Fowler, Esq.
          Kitty Szeto, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10th Street West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595

               - and -

          Philip A. Downey, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 1021
          Unionville, PA 19375
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848


FRASER MILNER: Sued Over Failed Donation Tax Shelter
----------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for the Financial Post, reports that law
firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP and accounting firm BDO Dunwoody
LLP are among defendants named in a proposed class-action that
seeks more than $300-million in damages from a failed donation tax
shelter.

Marc Charette of Pickering, Ont., is the representative plaintiff
in the proposed class action, which alleges he faces higher tax
bills after the Canada Revenue Agency refused to grant him tax
credits under the scheme.

Mr. Charette claims he relied on tax opinions written by both FMC
Law and BDO Dunwoody when he put $1.1-million into a "leveraged"
donation tax shelter called the Donation Program for Medical
Science and Technology.

The program, set up by a Toronto-based company called Trinity
Capital Corp., was designed to fund large charitable donations
using borrowed money.  Taxpayers would put only a portion of their
own money into the scheme, but claim a tax deduction based on the
sum of both their own donations plus any borrowed amounts.

Mr. Charette participated in the program in 2002 and 2003 when he
made two leveraged donations, one for $1-million and another for
$100,000.

Leveraged tax-shelter schemes ran into trouble in 2009, when the
Tax Court of Canada ultimately ruled that they didn't pass muster
in a test case called Marechaux v. The Queen.

For something to qualify as a "gift," Canadian law says a donor
isn't supposed to receive anything in return.  This isn't the case
with leveraged tax donation programs.  The tax court found
taxpayers did in fact receive significant benefits through the
interest-free loans provided to boost the size of the supposed
gifts.  Where there's a benefit, there's no gift.  The case was
upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal last October, and leave is
being sought to argue the matter before the Supreme Court of
Canada.

The lawsuit claims the defendants were negligent for helping put
the scheme before program participants, who now face elevated tax
bills from the government.

"Had the donors known that they would not be entitled to income
tax credits, they would not have participated in the program," the
statement of claim alleges.

None of the allegations made in the civil claim has been proven in
court.  What's more, the lawsuit was only filed on March 11 and
the plaintiffs must still get the case certified by an Ontario
judge before the matter is to proceed as a class action.

Contacted on March 14, FMC Law said it would defend the claim.
"Fraser Milner Casgrain has a well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients and we firmly stand behind our lawyers and
the quality of their counsel."

A spokesman for BDO couldn't be reached for comment.

In addition to FMC Law and BDO, named as defendants are lawyer
Graham Turner, accountant Ralph Neville, businessmen James Arnold
and James Beatty, the John McKeller Charitable Foundation and
several corporate entities: Trinity Capital, Trinity Wood Capital
Corp., Capital Structures Ltd., Capital Structures 2002 and TC
Capital Ltd.

The case is at least the second filed in Ontario pursuant to the
collapse of donation tax shelter schemes.  A year ago, Madame
Justice Joan Lax of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class action for taxpayers who lost out in a plan
called the Banyan Tree Gift Progam.  FMC Law is a defendant in
that action as well.


GENERAL MOTORS: Pension Fund Case Over GM Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian pension fund has voluntary withdrawn its complaint
against General Motors Company over the merger deal with
AmeriCredit Corp on January 4, 2011.

The disclosure was made General Motors Financial Company, Inc.'s
March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the transition period from July 1, 2010,
to December 31, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of July 21, 2010, with General Motors
Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly
owned subsidiary of General Motors Company, and Goalie Texas
Holdco Inc., a Texas corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of GM Holdings -- the Merger Sub -- GM Holdings
completed its acquisition of AmeriCredit Corp. via the merger of
Merger Sub with and into AmeriCredit Corp., with AmeriCredit Corp.
continuing as the surviving company in the Merger and becoming a
wholly owned subsidiary of GM Holdings.  Following the Merger, the
Company's name was changed to General Motors Financial Company,
Inc.

On July 28, 2010, an action styled Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al, was filed in the
District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 236 246960 10.
The plaintiff sought class action status and alleged individual
defendants, which include GM Financial's officers and directors,
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
proposed transaction between GM Financial and Old GM and that Old
GM aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  Among
other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin both the transaction
from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the pending
transaction; however, no motion for an injunction was filed.  On
January 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-suit, dismissing
its claims without prejudice.


GENZYME CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in Massachusetts is pending, according to the
Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.

In July 2009 and August 2009, two purported securities class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company and its President
and Chief Executive Officer. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
those who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
from June 26, 2008 through July 21, 2009 and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Each of the lawsuits is premised upon allegations that, among
other things, the Company made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions by failing to disclose instances of viral
contamination at two of the Company's manufacturing facilities and
the Company's receipt of a list of inspection observations from
the FDA related to one of the facilities, which detailed
observations of practices that the FDA considered to be deviations
from GMP. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and
reimbursement of costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. In
November 2009, the lawsuits were consolidated in In Re Genzyme
Corp. Securities Litigation and a lead plaintiff was appointed. In
March 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
that extended the class period from October 24, 2007 through
November 13, 2009 and named additional individuals as defendants.
In June 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion
to dismiss in August 2010 and the Company filed a reply in support
of the Company's motion to dismiss in September 2010. Oral
arguments on the Company's motion to dismiss were heard on
January 26, 2011.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Research Coverage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) obtained
court approval of settlement agreements resolving lawsuits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the firm's research coverage, 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.

Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several
investment firms that have been named as defendants in
substantively identical purported class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
research coverage of certain issuers and seeking compensatory
damages.  One such action, relating to coverage of RSL
Communications, Inc., commenced on July 15, 2003.  The parties
entered into a settlement agreement on August 23, 2010, which
received final court approval on February 23, 2011.  Under the
settlement agreement, GS&Co. paid approximately $3.38 million.

Group Inc. and GS&Co. were named as defendants in a purported
class action filed on July 18, 2003 on behalf of purchasers of
Group Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002.  The
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
and violated the federal securities laws in connection with the
firm's research activities and sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and/or rescission.  On July 12,
2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to
which the settlement has been funded by the firm's insurers.  The
settlement received court approval on December 15, 2010 and has
become final.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Specialist Class Action Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., remains a defendant in various
class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist
activities, 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.

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg,
L.P. and Goldman Sachs are among numerous defendants named in
purported class actions brought beginning in October 2003 on
behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist
activities.  The actions, which have been consolidated, seek
unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on
behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between
October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003.  By a decision dated
March 14, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The defendants' petition with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of the
certification ruling was denied by an order dated October 1, 2009.
The specialist defendants' petition for a rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc was denied on February 24, 2010.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Treasury Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s
motion to dismiss an appeal filed in a lawsuit involving treasury
matters remains pending, according to Goldman Sachs' March 1, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

GS&Co. has been named as a defendant in a purported class action
filed on March 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of short
positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the
morning of October 31, 2001.  The complaint alleges that the firm
purchased 30-year bonds and futures prior to a forthcoming
Treasury refunding announcement that morning based on non-public
information about that announcement, and that the purchases
increased the costs of covering the short positions.  The
complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-based
political consultant who allegedly was the source of the
information, a former GS&Co. economist who allegedly received the
information, and another company and one of its employees who also
allegedly received and traded on the information prior to its
public announcement.  The complaint alleges violations of the
federal commodities and antitrust laws, as well as Illinois
statutory and common law, and seeks, among other things,
unspecified damages including treble damages under the antitrust
laws.  The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois
state law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims
to proceed.  Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied
by a decision dated August 22, 2008.  GS&Co. moved for summary
judgment, and the district court granted the motion but only
insofar as the claim relates to the trading of treasury bonds.  On
October 13, 2009, the parties filed an offer of judgment and
notice of acceptance with respect to plaintiff's individual claim.
On December 11, 2009, the plaintiff purported to appeal with
respect to the district court's prior denial of class
certification, and GS&Co. moved to dismiss the appeal on
January 25, 2010.  By an order dated April 13, 2010, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that GS&Co.'s
motion would be entertained together with the merits of the
appeal.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Refco Litigation Settlement Approved in Oct. 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving class action lawsuits filed against Refco
Inc., and a unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., was approved
and became final in October 2010, 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.

GS&Co. and the other lead underwriters for the August 2005 initial
public offering of 26.5 million shares of common stock of Refco
Inc. are among the defendants in various putative class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York beginning in October 2005 by investors in Refco Inc. in
response to certain publicly reported events that culminated in
the October 17, 2005 filing by Refco Inc. and certain affiliates
for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws.  The actions, which
have been consolidated, allege violations of the disclosure
requirements of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory
damages.  In addition to the underwriters, the consolidated
complaint names as defendants Refco Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, certain officers and directors of Refco Inc., Thomas
H. Lee Partners, L.P. (which held a majority of Refco Inc.'s
equity through certain funds it manages), Grant Thornton (Refco
Inc.'s outside auditor), and BAWAG P.S.K. Bank fur Arbeit und
Wirtschaft und Osterreichische Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft
(BAWAG).  Lead plaintiffs entered into a settlement with BAWAG,
which was approved following certain amendments on June 29, 2007.
GS&Co. underwrote 5,639,200 shares of common stock at a price of
$22 per share for a total offering price of approximately $124
million.  On April 20, 2010, certain underwriting defendants
including GS&Co. entered into a settlement of the action, pursuant
to which they will contribute $49.5 million to a settlement fund.
The settlement received court approval on October 27, 2010 and has
become final.

GS&Co. has, together with other underwriters of the Refco Inc.
initial public offering, received requests for information from
various governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations.
GS&Co. has cooperated with those requests.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to face class
action lawsuits pertaining to mortgage-related matters, 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.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the collateralized debt obligations market.  The
purported class action complaints, which name as defendants Group
Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its
affiliates, generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages.  On
June 25, 2010, certain shareholders and groups of shareholders
moved to consolidate these actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel.

Group, Inc.'s unit, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage
Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or
former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class
action commenced on December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of
purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and
asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts
in 2007 and underwritten by GS&Co. The second amended complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
recessionary damages.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint was granted on January 28, 2010, with leave to
replead certain claims.  On March 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint relating to two offerings, which the
defendants moved to dismiss on June 22, 2010.  This motion to
dismiss was denied as to the plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims
on September 22, 2010, and granted as to the plaintiff's Section
11 claims on October 15, 2010, and the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was denied on November 17, 2010.  On December 9,
2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment or
certification of an interlocutory appeal as to plaintiff's Section
11 claims, which was denied on January 11, 2011.  On June 3, 2010,
another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought to intervene in
the action) filed a separate putative class action asserting
substantively similar allegations relating to an additional
offering pursuant to the 2007 registration statement.  The
defendants moved to dismiss this separate action on November 1,
2010.  GS&Co. underwrote approximately $951 million principal
amount of certificates to all purchasers in the offerings at issue
in the complaint (excluding those offerings for which the claims
have been dismissed).

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Lawsuit Over Hudson CDO Securities Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over collateralized debt obligations filed
against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s unit, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., 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 September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs
(Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2).  The complaint, which was
amended on February 4, 2011, asserts federal securities law and
common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive
and other damages.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Washington Mutual Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for partial judgment in a putative securities class
action lawsuit, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., as a defendant, has been denied,
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.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action amended complaint filed on
August 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.  As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the
offering documents in connection with various securities offerings
by Washington Mutual, Inc. failed to describe accurately the
company's exposure to mortgage-related activities in violation of
the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  The
defendants include past and present directors and officers of
Washington Mutual, the company's former outside auditors, and
numerous underwriters.  By a decision dated May 15, 2009, the
district court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to replead and, on
June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  By a
decision dated October 27, 2009, the federal district court
granted and denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss.
On October 12, 2010, the court granted class certification (except
as to one transaction).  On December 1, 2010, the defendants moved
for partial judgment on the pleadings as to two of the offerings.
By a decision dated January 28, 2011, the district court denied
the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $520 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the
complaint (excluding those offerings for which the claims have
been dismissed).

On September 25, 2008, the FDIC took over the primary banking
operations of Washington Mutual, Inc. and then sold them.  On
September 27, 2008, Washington Mutual, Inc., filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to intervene in class action lawsuits wherein a unit of
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is named a defendant remain 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.

Goldman, Sachs & Co., is among numerous underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage-
related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws.  The defendants include IndyMac-related entities
formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of
the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit
quality of the securities, and certain former officers and
directors of IndyMac affiliates.  On November 2, 2009, the
underwriters moved to dismiss the complaint.  The motion was
granted in part on February 17, 2010, to the extent of dismissing
claims based on offerings in which no plaintiff purchased, and the
court reserved judgment as to the other aspects of the motion.  By
a decision dated June 21, 2010, the district court formally
dismissed all claims relating to offerings in which no named
plaintiff purchased certificates (including all offerings
underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted and denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in various other respects.  On
May 17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to
intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings
(including two underwritten by GS&Co.).  On July 6, 2010, another
additional investor filed a motion to intervene in order to assert
claims based on additional offerings (none of which were
underwritten by GS&Co.).

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May
2010 motion to intervene.  On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was
placed under an FDIC receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac
Bancorp, Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Wage & Hour Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to
face a class action lawsuit in New York alleging failure to pay
overtime pay, 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 27, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by several
contingent technology workers who were employees of third-party
vendors.  The plaintiffs are seeking overtime pay for alleged
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week.  The complaint alleges
that the plaintiffs were de facto employees of Group Inc.'s
subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and that GS&Co. is responsible
for the overtime pay under federal and state overtime laws.  The
complaint seeks class action status and unspecified damages.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Discrimination Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to
defend itself from a class action lawsuits in New York alleging
gender discrimination, 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 September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
former female employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations.  The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.  On November 22, 2010, Group Inc. and
GS&Co. filed a motion to stay the claims of one of the named
plaintiffs and to compel individual arbitration with that
individual, based on an arbitration provision contained in an
employment agreement between Group Inc. and the individual.


HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets March 18 Case Conference on Chavez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court has set a March 18, 2011, case
management conference in the class action lawsuit filed by
Christopher Chavez against Hansen Natural Corporation, 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 September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Defendants removed this Superior Court
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act and
filed motions for dismissal or transfer.  On June 11, 2007, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's
complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion
reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion
for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification.  The hearing for all three motions
occurred on May 27, 2010.  On June 18, 2010, the District Court
entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was no
preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The class that the District Court certified initially
consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the
Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between
May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.  The Company subsequently filed a
petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to file an
appeal to reverse the decision to certify a class.  On August 27,
2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's petition.  On
September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the
class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of
December 10, 2010, and a trial date for March, 2011.  On September
28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for Leave to file a motion
for reconsideration of the order certifying the class action.  On
November 11, 2010, the Company filed two dispositive motions: a
motion to decertify the class and a motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff filed his motion for partial summary judgment.  The
District Court took all motions under submission without oral
argument.  The District Court judge assigned to the case, Judge
Vaughn Walker, recently announced his retirement from the bench,
with such retirement effective February 2011.  On January 31,
2011, Judge Jeffrey S. White was assigned to the case and
subsequently vacated all pending hearing dates.  A case management
conference has been set for March 18, 2011, and the pending
motions have been rescheduled to be heard on April 1, 2011.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all the
allegations and plans a vigorous defense.


HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Hansen Natural Corporation
and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The
plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class
in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of
C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.  The plaintiff's
certification motion materials have not yet been filed.  In
accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.

No updates were reported in 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.


HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets April 14 Hearing in Amended Cunha Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to dismiss an amended consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed against Hansen Natural
Corporation and other parties has been scheduled for April 14,
2011, 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 September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.
The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007.  It named as
defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and
Thomas J. Kelly.  Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (AB) and its sales of "Allied" energy
drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the
basis of material non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged
that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of
2007 did not include certain promotional expenses.  The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  While
similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the
allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company
engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that
rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results
and certain other statements made by the defendants.  In addition,
it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended
Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.  Plaintiff's opposition to
defendants' motion was filed on January 14, 2011, and defendants'
reply brief was filed on February 11, 2011.  A hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint
is currently scheduled for April 14, 2011.


HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Network Systems, LLC, awaits the approval of its settlement
relating to the consolidated lawsuit commenced by subscribers of
its HughesNet service, according to the Company's March 7, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 18, 2009, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, and Hughes
Communications Inc. received notice of a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by two
California subscribers to the HughesNet service.  The plaintiffs
complain about the speed of the HughesNet service, the Fair Access
Policy, early termination fees and certain terms and conditions of
the HughesNet subscriber agreement.  The plaintiffs seek to pursue
their claims as a class action on behalf of other California
subscribers.  On June 4, 2009, the Company and HCI received notice
of a similar complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in
the Superior Court of San Diego County, California.  The plaintiff
in this case also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on
behalf of other California subscribers.  Both cases have been
consolidated into a single case in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In January 2011, the Company agreed to settle this consolidated
case on a nationwide basis, subject to court approval.  As a
result, the Company has accrued $1.9 million for estimated
settlement costs, plaintiffs' attorney fees and other related
expenses.  In the event that the settlement is not effectuated,
the Company would revert to its previous position of vigorously
defending these matters as it believes that the allegations in
these complaints are not meritorious.


HUGHES NETWORK: Faces Lawsuits Over EchoStar Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Hughes Network Systems, LLC, face numerous lawsuits in different
states relating to its merger with EchoStar Corporation, according
to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Some or all of Hughes Communications Inc., its Directors, EchoStar
Corporation, EchoStar Satellite Services, L.L.C., Broadband
Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), and Apollo Global
Management, LLC have been named as defendants in four shareholder
class action lawsuits in connection with the proposed transaction
in which EchoStar will acquire all of the outstanding equity of
HCI and its subsidiaries.

On February 18, 2011, the Gottlieb Family Foundation filed its
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland.  On February 23, 2011, Plymouth County Retirement System
filed its shareholder class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On February 24, 2011, Edward
Ostensoe filed a shareholder class action complaint in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.  On February 28, 2011, Nina
J. Shah Rohrbasser Irr. Trust filed a shareholder class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  Each
complaint alleges that the directors of HCI breached their
fiduciary duties in agreeing to the transaction.  The complaints
also allege that some or all of HCI, EchoStar, EchoStar LLC,
Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted such breaches by the
directors of HCI.  In each case, the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
proposed transaction and/or damages, costs, and attorney fees.
HCI believes that the allegations in all of these complaints are
not meritorious and it intends to vigorously defend these matters.


KABA ILCO: Lead Counsel Appointed in Simplex Lock Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recently filed class action lawsuits against Kaba Ilco Corp., a
multinational company that is a leading manufacturer of the
Simplex line of electronic and mechanical pushbutton locks,
alleges that almost every lock sold by the company is easily
bypassed with a magnet leaving homes, office buildings, businesses
and high security areas such as airports, U.S. Customs offices,
courthouses, police and fire stations, and post offices subject to
easy break-in.  The suit alleges that by placing a magnet up to
the side of the lock the user can bypass the locking mechanism
without having to input the correct combination.  The lawsuits
have been consolidated before Judge Donald Nugent in the Northern
District of Ohio.

Simplex Pushbutton lock, manufactured by North Carolina based Kaba
Ilco Corp., are used in a wide variety of applications.  They can
be seen protecting anything from homes and businesses to bathroom
doors and airport high security areas.  The locks have prominent
use in the Jewish community due to the fact that they don't
require a key; carrying keys is forbidden on the Sabbath.  One of
the first suits filed alleges that the Brooklyn plaintiff
discovered he was able to open his Kaba Simplex lock with a magnet
and in order to rule out it being an isolated defect, he also
opened 25 of his neighbor's Kaba locks.  The technique is simple,
some reports have shown children with no guidance whatsoever were
able to open the locks after only a few minutes.  Replacing or
fixing these lock could cost Kaba hundreds of millions of dollars,
but until fixed it leaves homes and businesses vulnerable to
burglary.

Mr. Shkolnik has stated, "that he wants to move the litigation
quickly forward to ensure that Kaba takes responsibility and
either replaces the defective locks or provides immediate payment
for its customers to change out the defective locks to ensure
their safety."

Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Shkolnik & McCartney was one of the
first firms to file suit and is leading the Class Action to get
owners of these locks just compensation.

Contact: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.

         RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD, SHKOLNIK & MCCARTNEY LLP
         113 E 37th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 684-1880


KKR & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Violation Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. and other defendants continue to defend themselves
against a consolidated lawsuit pending in Massachusetts alleging
violation of antitrust laws, according to the Company's March 7,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The suit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub-class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is ongoing.  KKR believes that this action is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


KKR & CO: SEC Seeks Information on Del Monte Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. received a request from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the proposed acquisition of Del
Monte Foods Company by entities controlled by private equity
funds affiliated with the Company, according to the Company's
March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the SEC for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

KKR, along with two other private equity firms, is a defendant in
purported shareholder class actions arising out of the proposed
acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company by Blue Acquisition Group,
Inc. and Blue Merger Sub Inc., entities controlled by private
equity funds affiliated with the Sponsors.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the Del Monte directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Del Monte stockholders by
agreeing to sell Del Monte at an unfair price and through an
unfair process and by filing an allegedly materially misleading
and incomplete proxy statement.  The complaints also generally
allege that the Sponsors, the Acquisition Entities and Del Monte
aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints all seek injunctive relief, rescission of the
merger agreement, damages and attorneys' fees.  The various
complaints filed in the Delaware Chancery Court were consolidated
on December 31, 2010, under the caption In re Del Monte Foods
Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 6027-VCL.

On February 14, 2011, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a ruling
which, among other things, found on the preliminary record before
the court that the plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits of its aiding and abetting
claim against the Sponsors, including KKR.  The ruling enjoined
defendants from proceeding with the Del Monte stockholder vote,
previously scheduled for February 15, 2011, for twenty days and
preliminarily enjoined certain deal protection provisions of the
merger agreement pending the stockholder vote.  On February 18,
2011, an amended complaint was filed in the Delaware action.  The
amended complaint asserts claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty
against the Del Monte directors, (ii) aiding and abetting the
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty against the Sponsors, the
Acquisition Entities, and Barclays Capital, Inc., which served as
a financial advisor to Del Monte in connection with the proposed
acquisition, (iii) breach of contract against the Sponsors arising
from a confidentiality agreement between the Sponsors and Del
Monte, and (iv) tortuous interference with contract against
Barclays arising from the aforementioned confidentiality agreement
between the Sponsors and Del Monte.  Similar shareholder actions
are pending against the Del Monte directors, Sponsors and/or the
Acquisition Entities in California Superior Court and the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company says that there has been limited activity in these
California cases to date.  KKR is still evaluating these Delaware
and California actions and expects to defend them vigorously.  On
March 4, 2011, KKR received a request from the SEC for information
regarding issues relating to the Del Monte transaction.  KKR says
it is cooperating with the SEC's inquiry.


KKR & CO: Time to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit Has Passed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the
Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System
against KKR Financial Holdings LLC has passed and, hence, the
judgment is now final, according to KKR & CO. L.P.'s March 7,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2008, KKR Financial Holdings LLC, the members of KFN's
board of directors and certain of its former executive officers,
including certain of KKR's current and former personnel, were
named in a putative class action complaint filed by the Charter
Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  In March 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which deleted as defendants the members of KFN's board
of directors and named as individual defendants only KFN's former
chief executive officer, KFN's former chief operating officer, and
KFN's former chief financial officer.  The amended complaint
alleges that KFN's April 2007 registration statement and
prospectus and the financial statements incorporated therein
contained material omissions in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, regarding the risks and
potential losses associated with KFN's real estate-related assets,
KFN's ability to finance its real estate-related assets, and the
adequacy of KFN's loss reserves for its real estate-related
assets.  The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to
Section 15 of the Securities Act, the KFN Individual Defendants
have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation.
The amended complaint seeks judgment in favor of the lead
plaintiff and the putative class for unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the KFN Defendants' alleged misconduct,
costs and expenses incurred by the lead plaintiff in the action,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, and equitable or
injunctive relief.  In April 2009, the KFN Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim under the Securities Act.

In November 2010, the court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice.  Plaintiffs' time to take an
appeal has run, and the judgment is now final.


KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Haley Paint Suit Still Pending in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated purported class action captioned Haley Paint et al.
v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., in Maryland is
still pending against Kronos Worldwide, Inc., according to the
Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In March 2010, the Company is served with two complaints which
were subsequently consolidated as Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du
Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court,
Northern Division of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB).  The
defendants include the Company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.
and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal).
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and
entities that purchased titanium dioxide in the United States
directly from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1,
2002.  The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which
titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in
other anticompetitive conduct.  In May 2010, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed in June 2010.  The
case is proceeding in the trial court.


LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend Alaska Workers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit filed by former employees in Alaska, according to the
Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit
against Lithia (Dunham, et al. v. Lithia Support Services, et al.,
3AN-06-6338 Civil, Superior Court for the State of Alaska) seeking
overtime wages, additional liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named
plaintiffs. The court ordered the dispute to arbitration. In
February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request to
establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and
former service and parts department employees totaling
approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis.
Lithia filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this class
certification. The arbitrator granted the Company's motion in part
and removed approximately 30 service and parts managers from the
case. A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the remaining
class members in October 2009. Lithia and the plaintiffs agreed to
conduct the arbitration in two parts. The first part of
arbitration determined if liability exists for Lithia. This
arbitration was conducted from September 27 to 29, 2010. The
arbitrator ruled in Lithia's favor and determined that there were
no valid claims. The plaintiff has appealed the decision; however,
the Company believes the likelihood of overturning the decision is
remote, as the appeal is to the arbitrator who made the initial
ruling. Accordingly, the Company does not expect the ultimate
resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com/-- is the ninth
largest automotive retailer in the United States and a Fortune 800
company.  Lithia sells 26 brands of new and all brands of used
vehicles at 85 stores, which are located in 12 states.  Lithia
also sells used vehicles; arranges finance, warranty, and credit
insurance contracts; and provides vehicle parts, maintenance, and
repair services at all of its locations.


LOUISIANA: Public Defender Board Sued Over $35 Statutory Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for Louisiana's Legal Journal, reports
that on behalf of criminal defendants, the Tulane Law Clinic has
filed a class action against the Louisiana Public Defender Board
for violating the rights of criminal defendants by collecting a
$35 statutory fee.

Steven Bice, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
indigent criminal defendants, filed suit against Louisiana Public
Defender Board on Feb. 28 in federal court in New Orleans.

The lawsuit claims that the statutory fee -- indigent defender
fund -- imposed by the Public Defender Board creates an
unconstitutional conflict of interest.  The $35 fee is only
imposed if the criminal defendants are convicted after a trial, a
guilty plea or nolo contendere or forfeiting bond.

Mr. Bice also claims the fee creates an attorney-client conflict
between Louisiana public defenders and their indigent clients.

The plaintiff is asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment
that collecting the statutory fee violates the rights of Mr. Bice
and similarly situated individuals and to issue an injunction
preventing the Louisiana Public Defender Board from accepting the
fee.  Mr. Bice is also asking for an award of costs and attorney's
fees.

Mr. Bice is represented by Stacy Seicshnaydre and M. Lucia
Blacksher of Tulane Law Clinic in New Orleans.

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-00477


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling on Texas Suit Appeal Before June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries, Inc., is expecting a ruling on an appeal it
filed in a class action lawsuit pending in Texas before the end of
the second quarter of 2011, 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 March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who
alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings
were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin,
Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a
decision that certified a class for this case, which included all
black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the
present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003
while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for
this case began in December 2003, and after the close of
plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the
trial until October 2004. Although plaintiff's class certification
encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs
presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination
in initial assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the Company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August
29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award
for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including
interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney
fees that the Company estimates will result in a total not to
exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the
District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company to cease and
desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and
(ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses.

The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company
appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral
argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a
decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated
the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black
employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied
plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate
treatment claim. Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's
promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was
vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the
opinion.  The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded
with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive
relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was
remanded to the District Court for further consideration in
accordance with prevailing authority.

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues
of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions
which described the formula and underlying assumptions that
supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After
careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the
Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal
issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a
result of these different results, the court requested further
evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to
render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties
arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an
interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original
request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of
the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the
originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.
Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages
during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the
plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling
$5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0
million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded
in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently
dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the basis that an
appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued.  The
court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of
final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas notified the Company that it had entered a final
judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit.
On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment.  On January 21, 2010, the Company filed a notice
of cross-appeal with the same court.

On January 15, 2010, in its final judgment, the Court ordered
Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages,
$2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any
post-judgment interest. The Company had previously estimated the
total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2
million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request
for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date
of the final judgment. The plaintiffs were required to submit this
request within 14 days of the final judgment. On January 21, 2010,
the Company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the
payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final
judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on
both parties' appeals.  The District Court granted this motion to
stay.

On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as
allowed in the final judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the
Company recorded a provision of $1.0 million for these legal
expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of
damages.  On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney's fees, costs and
expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of
January 1, 2009 through January 15, 2010.  In order to cover these
cost, the Company recorded an additional provision of $1.0 million
in September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end of 2010.

On February 2, 2011 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals accepted the oral arguments from the plaintiffs and the
Company on their respective appeals to the court.  The Company
anticipate the court's decision before the end of the second
quarter of 2011.


M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a lawsuit over
Chinese manufactured drywall.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the United
States or alternatively in Florida, against the company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties -- Initial
Action.  The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging metals.
The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and sought
legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's
fees.  The Company filed a responsive pleading on or about
April 30, 2009.  This case has been consolidated with other
similar actions not involving the company and transferred to the
Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings -- In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall
Product Liability Litigation.  In connection with the
administration of the In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product
Liability Litigation, the same homeowner and five other homeowners
are named as plaintiffs in an omnibus class action complaint filed
in December 2009 against a certain identified manufacturer of
drywall and others, including the Company, and one other homeowner
is named as a plaintiff in another omnibus class action complaint
filed in March 2010 against various unidentified manufacturers of
drywall and others, including the Company.  As they relate to the
Company, the Initial Action and the MDL Omnibus Actions address
substantially the same claims and seek substantially the same
relief.  During the third quarter of 2010, the Company entered
into agreements with three of those homeowners named as plaintiffs
pursuant to which the Company agreed to make repairs to their
homes consistent with repairs made to the homes of other
homeowners.  As a result of those agreements, the Initial Action
has been resolved, and those three homeowners are no longer
parties to any of the MDL Omnibus Actions.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

No updates were reported in 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.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/
-- is a builder of single-family homes.  The company's homes are
marketed and sold under the trade names M/I Homes and Showcase
Homes.  The company has homebuilding operations in Columbus and
Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa
and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina; and
the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.


MASSEY COAL: Trial Held on Medical Monitoring Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The State Journal reports that a class action lawsuit went to
trial on March 14 in Raleigh County Circuit Court requesting
medical monitoring for children attending Marsh Fork Elementary
School.

Jurors were being chosen on March 14 in Raleigh County Circuit
Court in a medical monitoring lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed against Massey Coal claims hundreds of children
were exposed to coal dust and now face health problems as a
result.

Massey has a coal silo a couple of hundred feet away from Marsh
Fork Elementary School.

Massey officials said there's no evidence to support that claim or
to justify medical monitoring.

Opening arguments were set to begin on March 15.


MASSEY ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Two Securities Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company continues to defend itself against two
securities class action lawsuits asserting similar claims,
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 April 29, 2010, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act by certain Company officers and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by these same officers, as well as
certain current and former directors in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's safety
record.  Macomb seeks (1) an award of damages to Macomb and the
members of the purported class and (2) an award to Macomb of
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On May 28, 2010, the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana
brought a purported class action, alleging substantially similar
violations as Macomb, against the same defendants, as well as
another director and officer.  Firefighters seeks (1) an award of
damages to Firefighters and the members of the purported class and
(2) an award to Firefighters of reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees.

On June 28, 2010, four purported class members filed separate
motions requesting that the court consolidate the Macomb and
Firefighters Actions, appoint each purported class member as lead
plaintiff and approve each purported class member's choice of lead
counsel.  The MEE Investor Group subsequently withdrew its motion.
The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System subsequently filed
notice stating that it supported the Massachusetts Pension
Reserves Investment Trust's motion, and the court thereafter
denied the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System's motion as
moot. David Wagner's and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Trust's Motions for Consolidation are pending before
the court.


MATCH.COM LLC: Accused of Misrepresenting Number of Active Members
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Fitzpatrick, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Match.com, L.L.C., Case No. 11-cv-01206
(N.D. Calif. March 11, 2011), assert claims for violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent and deceptive
prongs, violation of California's False Advertising Law, money had
and received, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs and members of the class are all current or past paying
members or subscribers to Match's online dating service.  Match is
a Delaware limited liability corporation that maintains its
headquarters and principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.
Match is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAC/InteractiveCorp and
operates a website for single adults to meet each other online.
Members pay a monthly fee to access all features of the website.

The plaintiffs say that Match negligently or fraudulently
misrepresented to Class members that millions of individuals were
active members, when, in fact, more that 60% of the profiles of
alleged subscribers are inactive, fake or fraudulent members who
could not be reached via Match's website because their
subscriptions have expired or are illegitimate.  Plaintiffs allege
that Match subscribers were also misled into joining Match or were
misled into renewing their memberships based on communications
from Match that active members were trying to contact them when
such representations were false.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 461-1426
          E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com


MBIA INC: 2005 Securities Suit Remanded to New York District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court has reversed a lower court's dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action against MBIA, Inc., the
Company disclosed in its 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 as a defendant, along with certain of its
current and former officers, in private securities actions that
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation;
(Case No. 05-CV-03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005).
The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lead
plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005.  The lawsuit asserts, among
other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising
out of the Company's allegedly false and misleading statements
about its financial condition and the nature of the arrangements
entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with a health care
transaction loss.  The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of
these misleading statements or omissions, the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds.  On February 13, 2007, the Court
granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety,
on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.  The Court did not reach the
other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other
defendants.  On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  The Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on February 18, 2009.  On
September 24, 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with
prejudice.  On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
June 22 and 24, 2010, individual defendants Juliette Tehrani and
David Elliot, respectively, were voluntarily dismissed from the
litigation.  On February 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of the
Company's motion to dismiss and remanded the case back to the
district court for reconsideration of the statute of limitations
analysis in light of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds as well as to consider additional
arguments in favor of dismissal propounded by the Company.

MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as related
reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the public and
structured finance markets, and asset management advisory
services, on a global basis.  The Company was incorporated as a
business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in
1986.


MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit commenced in 2008 against
MBIA, Inc., remains pending in New York.

On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
in a separate shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company
and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.  Lead plaintiff, the Teachers'
Retirement System of Oklahoma, seeks to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased MBIA stock between July 2, 2007 and
January 9, 2008.  The amended complaint alleges that defendants
MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Among
other things, the complaint alleges that defendants issued false
and misleading statements with respect to the Company's exposure
to CDOs containing RMBS, specifically its exposure to so-called
"CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's
stock to trade at inflated prices.  On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs
filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
The motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint filed on behalf of Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton was fully
briefed as of October 29, 2010.

No updates were reported in 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.


MBIA INC: Aurelius Suit Stayed Pending ABN AMRO Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The complaint captioned Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. et al. v.
MBIA Inc. et al., 09-cv-2242 (S.D.N.Y.) has been stayed pending
resolution of an appeal in another lawsuit involving MBIA,
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 March 11, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company and
its subsidiaries, MBIA Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee
Corporation.  The lead plaintiffs, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd.,
Aurelius Capital Partners, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P.,
Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., and Fir Tree
Mortgage Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. purport to be acting as
representatives for a class consisting of all holders of
securities, instruments, or other obligations for which MBIA
Corp., before February 18, 2009, issued financial guarantee
insurance other than U.S. municipal/governmental bond securities.
The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the
transactions entered into by the Company and its subsidiaries,
which were approved by the New York State Insurance Department,
constituted fraudulent conveyances under Sections 273, 274 and 276
of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law.
The Complaint seeks, inter alia, (a) a declaration that the
alleged fraudulent conveyances are null and void and set aside,
(b) a declaration that National is responsible for the insurance
policies issued by MBIA Corp. up to February 17, 2009, and (c) an
award of damages in an unspecified amount together with costs,
expenses and attorneys' fees in connection with the action.  On
February 11, 2010, Judge Sullivan entered an order denying MBIA's
motion to dismiss.  On January 20, 2011, in light of the Appellate
Division of the New York State Supreme Court's order dismissing
the ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., Judge Sullivan
stayed this action pending plaintiffs' appeal to the New York
State Court of Appeals.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in a consolidated stockholder
class action lawsuit against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation is
pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24,
2008.  The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding and on May 18, 2009, an amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements
in 2008.  On December 2, 2009, the court granted the Company's and
other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice.  On January 18, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on August 9,
2010, the court denied the Company's and other defendants' related
dismissal motions.  On December 17, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification.  The defendants' opposition to
the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification is due
March 8, 2011.  The Company will continue to vigorously defend the
claims in these consolidated matters.


MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MedQuist Holdings Inc. has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a shareholder litigation pending in New
Jersey, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 8, 2011 and February 10, 2011, plaintiffs Victor N.
Metallo and Joseph F. Lawrence filed purported shareholder class
action complaints in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington
County (Chancery Division).  In their complaints, the plaintiffs
purported to be shareholders of MedQuist Inc. and sought to
represent a class of MedQuist Inc. minority shareholders in
pursuit of claims against defendants, MedQuist Inc., MedQuist
Holdings Inc. and MedQuist Inc. board members.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties they owed to
minority shareholders of MedQuist Inc. in connection with the
structuring and disclosure of the exchange offer by MedQuist
Holdings to exchange shares of MedQuist Holdings common stock for
properly tendered and accepted shares of common stock of MedQuist
Inc.  Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that (a) the
Exchange Offer is procedurally and financially unfair, (b) the
January 21, 2011 and February 16, 2011 Schedules 14D-9 that
MedQuist Inc. filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and the February 3, 2011 Prospectus that MedQuist
Holdings filed with the SEC are materially misleading and
incomplete, and (c) the Exchange Offer was structured by the
defendants in order to circumvent the provisions of the New Jersey
Shareholders' Protection Act.  Plaintiffs sought, among other
things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining
consummation of the Exchange Offer, unspecified damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  The two
Plaintiff actions were consolidated on February 22, 2011 under the
caption In Re: MedQuist Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Docket Number
C-018-11.

On March 4, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to settling the shareholder litigation.
Under the terms of the MOU, MedQuist Holdings has agreed to extend
the expiration of the Exchange Offer until 5:00 p.m., New York
City time, on Friday, March 11, 2011 (unless further extended or
earlier terminated) and has further agreed that if, as a result of
the Exchange Offer, it obtains ownership of at least 90% of the
outstanding common stock of MedQuist Inc., MedQuist Holdings will
conduct a short-form merger under applicable law to acquire the
remaining shares of MedQuist Inc. common stock that it does not
then own at the same exchange ratio applicable under the Exchange
Offer.  MedQuist Inc. has agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures concerning the Exchange Offer, which will be contained
in a filing on Schedule 14D-9 to be made by MedQuist Inc. with the
SEC.  The settlement and dismissal of the shareholder litigation
are conditioned upon, among other things, execution of a final
settlement stipulation and court approval.


MERRILL LYNCH: Seeks Dismissal of Second "Tipsword" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the matter David Tipsword
as Trustee of Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc.,
et al., is pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

MLPF&S is a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

On June 16, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a proposed
class of pre-need contract holders, David Tipsword as Trustee of
Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois against MLPF&S, among other defendants. The complaint
alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary duties and
committed negligence. MLPF&S filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, with prejudice, however, the Tipsword complaint was
subject to a court-imposed stay until October 4, 2010. On
November 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
substituting Claudia Burns for Mr. Tipsword as plaintiff in an
amended complaint. The amended complaint seeks compensatory
damages in an unliquidated amount, punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs. MLPF&S has filed a motion to dismiss.


MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals of plaintiffs from the dismissal of two purported
class actions against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., remain 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.

ML & Co., Bank of America and other financial institutions were
also named in two putative antitrust class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs
in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to
restrain trade in ARS by placing support bids in ARS auctions,
only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which
allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail. The plaintiff in the first
action, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al., seeks to represent a class of issuers of
ARS that the defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003 and
February 13, 2008. This issuer action seeks to recover, among
other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS
issuers allegedly have had to make after the defendants allegedly
stopped placing "support bids" in ARS auctions. The plaintiff in
the second action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.,
seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from
the defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed
on February 13, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other
relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS' market value,
and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases. Both actions also
seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's
private civil remedy. On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed
both actions with prejudice and the plaintiffs' appeals are
currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


MERRILL LYNCH: Still Defends "Kurrus" Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is still defending itself against a
lawsuit filed by a funeral home in Illinois, 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 July 28, 2010, Charles G. Kurrus, III, P.C., a funeral director
and owner of a funeral home, filed an action in the Circuit Court
for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois,
against MLPF&S, MLLA and MLBT-FSB, among others, including present
and former Merrill Lynch employees. The complaint, entitled
Charles F. Kurrus, III, P.C. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., et al., asserts causes of action for breach of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
civil conspiracy against all defendants; breach of fiduciary duty
against MLPF&S and MLBT-FSB; and negligence and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against MLPF&S. The complaint
seeks: disgorgement and remittance of all commissions, premiums,
fees and compensation paid to MLPF&S, MLLA, and MLBT-FSB; an
accounting; compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.


MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Case Still Pending in District of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against MGIC Investment Corporation
in the District of Columbia alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act 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.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Seven mortgage
insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as
RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which is commonly known as FCRA.  MGIC settled class action
litigation against it under RESPA in October 2003.  MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004 following denial of class certification in June
2004.  Since December 2006, class action litigation has been
brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.  On
November 29, 2010, six mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a
large mortgage lender (which was the plaintiffs' lender) were
named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action,
filed in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.  The
complaint alleges various causes of action related to the captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements of this mortgage lender,
including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying the
lender's captive reinsurer excessive premiums in relation to the
risk assumed by that captive.  The named plaintiffs' loan was not
insured by MGIC and it is the Company's understanding that it was
not reinsured by this mortgage lender's captive reinsurance
affiliates.  The Company intends to defend itself against this
complaint vigorously but is unable to predict the outcome of the
litigation or its effect.  While the Company is only a defendant
in this RESPA case, there can be no assurance that it will not be
subject to future litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the
outcome of any litigation would not have a material adverse effect
on the Company.

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


MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court's decision dismissing a class action
complaint against MGIC Investment Corporation remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 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.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint n June 22,
2009.  Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to
summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears
the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in the
Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss
development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS,
including its liquidity.  MGIC's motion to dismiss the Complaint
was granted on February 18, 2010.  On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.  Attached
to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named
in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for its investment in C-BASS.  The Amended Complaint also
named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended
Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported class
period covered by the Amended Complaint began on February 6, 2007,
and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended Complaint sought
damages based on purchases of MGIC stock during this time period
at prices that were allegedly inflated as a result of the
purported violations of federal securities laws.  On April 12,
2010, the Company filed a motion in opposition to the plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend its complaint.  On December 8, 2010, the
plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint was denied and the
Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  On January 6, 2011, the
plaintiff appealed the February 18, 2010 and December 8, 2010
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
consolidated cases or estimate associated expenses or possible
losses.  Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws
could be brought against the Company.

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Lockout
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tom Brady and other top stars
sued the NFL and its teams in an antitrust class action, claiming
the teams' anticompetitive contracts include a lockout that
destroys the free agent market and boycotts rookie players seeking
an NFL contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Brady, et al. v. National Football
League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/NFL.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara P. Berens, Esq.
          Justi Rae Miller, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, P.A.
          3720 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-6171
          E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com
                  jmiller@berensmiller.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. Thornton, Esq.
          BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A.
          2200 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 977-8550
          E-mail: pvolk@briggs.com

               - and -

          James W. Quinn, Esq.
          Bruce S. Meyer, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com
                  bruce.meyer@weil.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 259-8000
          E-mail: jkessler@dl.com
                  dfeher@dl.com
                  dgreenspan@dl.com


NATIONAL PENN: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshars, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a securities class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, 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 January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1961, et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf
of himself and a purported nationwide class. National Penn plans
on vigorously defending this lawsuit.  Each of the Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint.  On
November 3, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants'
motions.  The Company expects, but cannot guarantee, that a
decision will be issued in the first quarter of 2011.  If National
Penn's motion to dismiss is denied, the parties will take
discovery and the Court will establish a schedule for a class
certification motion and related briefing.  To date, a class has
not been certified.


NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Ventas Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit over its merger with Ventas, Inc., 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 28, 2011, a putative class action entitled Palma v.
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., was filed purportedly
on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Orange County Superior Court. It names
the Company and members of its Board of Directors as defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed
merger transaction between the Company and Ventas because the
proposed transaction would not maximize shareholder value and
would allegedly provide the directors personal benefits not shared
by the Company's shareholders. Along with other relief, the
complaint seeks an injunction against the closing of the proposed
merger. The Company intends to defend against this suit
vigorously.


NETFLIX INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Deaf Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Netflix discriminates against the deaf by subtitling only "a
minuscule portion" of the movies it rents.

A copy of the Complaint in Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-01199 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Netflix.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          2811 Sykes Ct.
          Santa Clara, CA 95051
          Telephone: (408) 459-0305
          E-mail: jack@westonfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          888 Turquoise Street
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 488-1672
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


NEUROMETRIX: Appeal From Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action in
Massachusetts against NeuroMetrix, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants.  These two actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between
October 27, 2005 and February 12, 2008, the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material information
to the investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.  On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among
others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.  On December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010.  Oral arguments on the
plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on September 15, 2010.  The
appeal is currently pending.

The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company
cannot guarantee that the outcome of the above lawsuit will be
favorable for the Company or that it will not be material to its
business, results of operations, or financial position.  However,
the Company does not believe that a loss related to this
litigation is probable.  Accordingly, no accrual relating to this
matter has been recorded at December 31, 2010.


NEW MEXICO GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Outage
--------------------------------------------------
J.R. Logan, writing for Taos News, reports that a Ranchos de Taos
resident has filed a lawsuit against New Mexico Gas Company,
alleging that the company's negligence contributed to a gas outage
that affected tens of thousands of its customers for several days.

The suit, filed last week at district court in Taos, seeks class
action status, meaning multiple plaintiffs could collectively seek
compensation.  Documents filed at the court name Ernest S.
Mondragon as the plaintiff "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated."

The Albuquerque attorneys who filed the complaint attest that the
state awarded New Mexico Gas Co. a "lucrative" monopoly when it
made the company the sole provider of natural gas service in many
areas of the state.

The suit claims that New Mexico Gas Co. cut off natural gas
service to some of New Mexico's poorest areas during record-
breaking cold temperatures in February.  Attorneys for the
plaintiff allege that the gas company was inadequately prepared
for such an event and that the company failed to have a plan in
place to properly handle an outage.

New Mexico Gas Co. has maintained that it had secured an ample
supply ahead of the arctic storm that hit New Mexico and Texas at
the beginning of February.  The company said the storm disrupted
the supply of gas from West Texas, eventually causing a drop in
pipeline pressure.  The company has said that shutting off gas to
rural areas was necessary to prevent the collapse of its entire
gas delivery system.

To restore service, the company had to go door-to-door to manually
turn off, then turn on meters -- a time-consuming process that
came under fire from several officials, including Gov. Susana
Martinez.

New Mexico Gas Co. President Annette Gardiner told reporters in
February that her company's response to the crisis was "not
acceptable."  Days after the outage, New Mexico Gas Co. announced
it would be setting up a fund of $1 million to pay for damage
claims from its customers.  But the suit filed last week argues
that the fund is far too small.

"Indeed, the failure and/ or refusal of NMGC to make adequate
refund payments has made this class action inevitable, necessary,
and the only way to achieve fairness and refunds for the affected
citizens," case documents read.

The plaintiff is asking the court to award compensation
proportionate to damages incurred by New Mexico Gas Co. customers.
Attorneys are also asking for punitive damages "to deter (New
Mexico Gas Co.) and others from committing such violations in the
future."

New Mexico Gas Co. spokeswoman Monica Hussey said the company
would not comment on the litigation until it had a chance to
review the case.  The Mondragon suit comes a few weeks after the
state Legislature voted to appoint a task force to look into the
gas outage.

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ordered the
investigation Feb. 15 to study the causes of the outage.  The
commission also stated that it would consider whether the
"curtailments" could reasonably have been avoided, and whether the
company's response to the outage was adequate.

Several local governments, including Taos County, the village of
Red River, and the city of Espanola have asked the commission to
be party to the investigation.  The state Public Regulation
Commission has set a May 3 hearing regarding the outage.

Gas company gets extension for rate case

The state Public Regulation Commission has granted a request from
New Mexico Gas Co. that will give the company until March 29 to
file a rate case.

The move is the first step toward securing a rate increase, and
any rate hike would have to first be approved by the Public
Regulation Commission.  New Mexico Gas Co. asked the commission
for a 30-day extension of the Feb. 28 deadline, stating that its
staff was tied up with investigations related to a February gas
outage and would not be able to submit necessary paperwork on
time.

In its response to the request, the commission granted the
extension, stating that New Mexico Gas Co. had "provided good and
sufficient cause for an extension of time".

At the end of 2008, when New Mexico Gas Co. acquired its assets
from Public Service Company of New Mexico, New Mexico Gas Co.
agreed to freeze rates for three years.  According to New Mexico
Gas Co. spokeswoman Monica Hussey, the utility's existing rates
were put in place in July 2007, and were based on data from 2005.

Ms. Hussey said the rate freeze will end Jan. 30, 2012, and that
the company has been preparing a rate case for several months.
Ms. Hussey declined to give specifics about how much of an
increase the company will seek.

She did say that New Mexico Gas Co. would not use revenue
generated through increased rates to pay damage claims related to
last month's outage.  The company has set up a $1 million fund to
pay those claims.


NGAS RESOURCES: Awaits Court Approval of Kentucky Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NGAS Resources, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit pending 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.

On January 12, 2011, a putative class action captioned David
Matranga and Bill Hubbard v. NGAS Resources, Inc. et al., Case No.
11-C1-250, was filed in the Fayette Circuit Court, Division 9, in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The defendants are NGAS and the
members of the NGAS board of directors, and Magnum Hunter. The
complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated British
Columbia law by breaching their fiduciary duties and other
obligations to the company's shareholders in connection with the
arrangement agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.
Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
proposed transaction arises out of a flawed process in which the
individual defendants engaged in self-dealing and agreed to
certain provisions in the arrangement agreement, which resulted in
an unfair price for NGAS shares and a failure to maximize
shareholder value. The suit further alleges that NGAS and Magnum
Hunter aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
order enjoining the NGAS defendants and Magnum Hunter from
consummating the arrangement, rescission of the arrangement
agreement, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 2, 2011,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. On
February 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
reiterating the allegations in their original pleading and adding
allegations challenging the sufficiency of the disclosures in NGAS
Resources' preliminary proxy statement. On February 18, 2011,
defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.
On the same date, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited
discovery.

While the company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and that it and the other defendants named in the lawsuit
have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the
burden and expense of further litigation relating to such
complaints, on March 1, 2011 the defendants reached an agreement
in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and
resolve all allegations by the plaintiffs against the defendants
in connection with the arrangement. The settlement, which is
subject to further definitive documentation and court approval,
provides for a settlement and release by the purported class of
NGAS shareholders of all claims against the defendants in
connection with the arrangement. In exchange for such settlement
and release, the parties agreed, after arm's length discussions
between and among the defendants and the plaintiffs, that the
company would provide certain additional disclosures to those in
its preliminary proxy statement relating to the arrangement
agreement, although the company does not make any admission that
such additional disclosures are material or otherwise required.
After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the
settlement, the parties also agreed that plaintiffs may apply to
the court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, which, under certain circumstances, defendants have
agreed not to oppose. In the event the settlement is not approved
by the court or the conditions to settlement are not satisfied,
the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these actions.


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Removing adultBasic Health Care Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philly reports that a Pittsburgh law firm on March 14 filed a
class action lawsuit against Gov. Corbett and the legislature over
the elimination of the state-supported health insurance program
for the working poor.

Attorneys representing the lead plaintiffs -- individuals lost
their adultBasic insurance on Feb. 28 -- said the state violated
both the constitution and state law failing to use tobacco
settlement money to continue to fund the program as stipulated
under the 2001 Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Act.

"Governor Corbett and the Pennsylvania legislature are in blatant
violation of the law and the only way to hold them accountable is
to take them to court," said attorney William Caroselli, of
Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan and Conboy, who filed the suit on
behalf of three lead plaintiffs in Commonwealth Court.
"Pennsylvania receives significant payments from the tobacco
settlements every year, and state law mandates that those proceeds
go toward making Pennsylvanians healthier, and that a portion be
specifically directed to fund adultBasic."

More than 42,000 people lost adultBasic medical coverage on
Feb. 28 when the Corbett administration said the fund that
supported the program was bankrupt.

The fund is expected to be replenished on Apr. 15 when the state
receives its $370 million payments from tobacco companies.

The Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Act provides that the
tobacco settlement monies would be "used to make Pennsylvanians
healthier and provide for the health of future generations of
Pennsylvanians," and specifically that 30% of the proceeds would
be shared between adultBasic Insurance and Medicaid for workers
with disabilities.


POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities & ERISA Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., and the other named defendants have entered into
settlements of class action lawsuits alleging violations of
securities laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
pending in Puerto Rico, 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.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Monta¤ez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a
consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock, among others. The consolidated action purported to be on
behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24,
2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading. The
consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated
Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
by making allegedly untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May
2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock. The consolidated
securities class action complaint sought class certification, an
award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees. On January 11, 2010, Popular, the
underwriter defendants and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint. On
August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing. The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a
consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint
purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the
Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the
Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from
January 24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses
pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular,
certain directors, officers and members of plan committees, each
of whom was alleged to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated
complaint alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular
stock as an investment alternative in the plans. The complaint
sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust,
along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in
compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular
and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended
complaint. Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for
judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that
the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion
be granted. On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the
Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision. No
opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in principle.

The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v.
Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of
nominal defendant Popular, Inc., against certain executive
officers and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,
waste of assets and abuse of control in connection with the
Company's issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial
statements and financial reports and the offering of the Series B
Preferred Stock. The derivative complaints sought a judgment that
the action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages,
restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On October 9, 2009, the Court
coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the
consolidated securities class action. On October 15, 2009, Popular
and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia
complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors
prior to initiating litigation. On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended
complaint. At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010,
the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters
pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On
August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross
mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the
Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On
October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to
consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions. On October 26, 2009,
plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court
of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion
pending the outcome of the remand proceedings. On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz
case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On October 13,
2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand
Order. On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants
moved for reconsideration of the remand order. The court denied
Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter.

On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San
Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint
brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce
an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the
Corporation in support of the pending derivative action. The Court
held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose" under
Puerto Rico law for such inspection. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff
in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal.
On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request for
reconsideration. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal before
the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. On June 11, 2010, Popular and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 22,
2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On July 6, 2010,
plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On
July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for
reconsideration.

At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases
discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding
mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be
settled. On January 18-19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and
Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable
Nicholas Politan. As a result of the mediation, the Corporation
and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle this matter. Under the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement
agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of
all defendants, the amount of $37.5 million will be paid by or on
behalf of defendants (of which management expects approximately
$30 million will be covered by insurance). The parties intend to
file a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for
preliminary approval within 45 days of the execution of the
memorandum of understanding. Popular's recognized a charge, net of
the amount expected to be covered by insurance, of $7.5 million in
December 2010 to cover the uninsured portion of the settlement.

The Garcia and Diaz actions were not included in the settlements.
However, since these are derivative actions the Corporation does
not expect to be liable for the payment of any money award, other
than the possible payment of the plaintiff's attorneys fees.

The Corporation is aware that a suit asserting similar claims on
behalf of certain individual shareholders under the federal
securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011.

Prior to the Hoff and derivative action mediation, the parties to
the ERISA class action entered into a separate memorandum of
understanding to settle that action. Under the terms of the ERISA
memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement
agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of
all defendants, the amount of $8.2 million will be paid by or on
behalf of the defendants (all of which management expects will be
covered by insurance). The parties intend to file a joint request
to approve the settlement by approximately the middle of April
2011.


POWER BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising in Violation of CLRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Patrick, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Power Balance, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01202 (N.D. Calif.
March 11, 2011), accuses Power Balance of making misleading and
deceptive advertisements about its wristbands, pendants and other
jewelry with "Mylar Holograms" and the holograms themselves.  The
defendant marketed the products as improving balance, strength,
flexibility, endurance and stamina, when, in fact, there is no
credible scientific evidence to support these claims, in violation
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiff Dennis Patrick, a resident of California, purchased a
Power Balance bracelet in June 2009.

Defendant Power Balance, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company with its 4 principal place of business in Laguna Niguel,
California.  Defendant distributes and sells the products in
California and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reginald Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          P.O. Box 13315, PMB # 148
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

          Donald Amamgbo, Esq.
          AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 325
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 337-1134
          E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com

               - and -

          Sydney J. Hall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY J. HALL
          1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 342-1830


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended securities class action lawsuit filed against
PrivateBancorp, Inc., is pending in Illinois 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 October 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009.  Certain of the
Company's current and former executive officers and directors and
firms that participated in the underwriting of the Company's June
2008 and May 2009 public offerings of common stock are also named
as defendants in the litigation.  On January 25, 2011, the City of
New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and State-Boston
Retirement System were together named as the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2011.  The amended
complaint alleges various claims of securities law violations
against certain of the named defendants relating to disclosures
the Company made during the class period in filings under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and rescission.


RADIAN GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Filed Against Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. intends to seek dismissal of a lawsuit filed
against its subsidiary, 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 November 29, 2010, a lawsuit Moses vs. SunTrust Banks, Inc.,
alleged to be a class action, was filed in the Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia against SunTrust Bank, its
affiliates and a number of mortgage insurers, including Radian
Guaranty Inc., the Company's primary mortgage insurance
subsidiary.  The complaint alleges various causes of action
related to captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements with SunTrust
Bank, including that the defendants violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act by paying the lender's captive reinsurer
excess premiums in relation to the risk assumed by that captive.
The mortgage insurer defendants demanded that the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss from the lawsuit any mortgage insurer who has
not insured the plaintiffs' loan.  The plaintiffs responded
informally that they would do so in an amended complaint they
intend to file sometime after March 2, 2011.  Plaintiffs disclosed
at the time of their response to the demand for dismissal that
they intend to add another plaintiff in the amended complaint and
have identified one potential plaintiff.  Radian Guaranty does not
insure the loan of the original plaintiffs nor the one potential
new plaintiff who has been identified.  The Company intends to
move to dismiss the claims against its unit in the event that the
plaintiffs do not voluntarily dismiss it from the lawsuit.


SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Okay of South Carolina Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement it entered
into with plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit pending in South
Carolina, 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 May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit currently styled as
Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company and SCANA Communications, Inc. was filed in South
Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial
Circuit. The plaintiffs alleged that SCE&G made improper use of
certain electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by
allowing fiber optic communication lines and/or wireless
communication equipment to transmit communications other than
SCE&G's electricity-related internal communications and asserted
causes of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and
declaratory judgment, but did not assert a specific dollar amount
for the claims. In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling
that limits the plaintiffs' purported class to easement grantors
situated in Charleston County, South Carolina. In February 2008
the Circuit Court issued an order to conditionally certify the
class, which remained limited to easements in Charleston County.
In July 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to add SCI to the lawsuit as
an additional defendant was granted. While SCE&G and SCI believe
their actions were consistent with governing law and the
applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way, this
case, with Circuit Court approval in August 2010, has been
tentatively settled as to all easements and rights of ways
currently containing fiber optic communications lines in South
Carolina. The parties are proceeding to identify class members and
resolve other settlement related issues. While this settlement is
subject to a fairness hearing before it is finally approved, SCE&G
and SCI currently know of no reason why such approval will not be
given. This tentative settlement will not have a material adverse
impact on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or
financial condition.


SINGAPORE AIR: May Opt for Settlement in Surcharges Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bruce, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Singapore
Airlines is likely to pursue a settlement in the fuel surcharges
class action after agreeing to pay travel agents commission on
fuel and insurance surcharges from April 1.

The commission will apply to eligible international published
fares sold in Australia.  Agents will claim the commission via the
billing and settlement plan.

It follows a landmark Federal Court decision last year, which
found Qantas was liable to pay commission on fuel surcharges
(Travel Today, May 4, 2010).  Australia's flag carrier reacted to
that ruling by agreeing to pay commission on fuel surcharges
(January 25).

The lawyer representing travel agents in the class action, Steven
Lewis from Slater & Gordon, said Singapore Airlines made the right
decision.  "Obviously Singapore Airlines read the judgment against
Qantas and it is inevitable SIA is also liable to pay commission,"
Mr. Lewis said.

The case against Qantas -- which will return to the courts later
this month to determine how much is owed to travel agents -- was
viewed as a test case.  Once the Qantas case is finalized,
attention will turn to the other airlines named in the original
class action -- Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, British Airways
and SIA.  But Mr. Lewis said initial talks have indicated
Singapore Airlines would consider working towards a settlement.
Singapore Airlines was unavailable for comment as Travel Today
went to press.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend "Highstein" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunication Systems, Inc., remains a defendant in a
shareholder class action captioned Highstein v. TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc., et al., in New York, according to the Company's
March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the month ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of its current officers and a
director, and several investment banks that were the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering: Highstein v.
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., et al., United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 01-
CV-9500.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period
August 8, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's Class A
Common Stock offered for sale in its initial public offering to
certain purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those purchasers to make additional
purchases of its Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege that all of the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and that the underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The claims against
the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with
the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead.  On October 5, 2009,
the Court approved a settlement of this and approximately 300
similar cases. On January 14, 2010, an Order and Final Judgment
was entered. Various notices of appeal of the Court's October 5,
2009 order were subsequently filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but
two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation
with the Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the
two remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.
The Company intends to continue to defend the lawsuit until the
matter is resolved.  The Company has purchased a Directors and
Officers insurance policy which it believes should cover any
potential liability that may result from these laddering class
action claims, but can provide no assurance that any or all of the
costs of the litigation will ultimately be covered by the
insurance.  No reserve has been recorded for this matter.


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Amends Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2011, Terremark Worldwide, Inc., disclosed that it
entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the
settlement of eight lawsuits, according to the Company's March 1,
2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On January 27, 2011, Terremark Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Verizon Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation (Parent), and
Verizon Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser).  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, upon its terms and subject to its conditions, Purchaser
commenced a tender offer on February 10, 2011 to acquire all
outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of
the Company at a purchase price of $19.00 per share, net to the
seller in cash, less any required withholding taxes.  The Merger
Agreement further provides that, following completion of the
Offer, Purchaser will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.

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

All of the complaints except for the Minneapolis Firefighters'
Relief Association complaint name the Company, the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, Parent and Purchaser as defendants.
The Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association suit names the
members of the Board of Directors, Parent and Purchaser, but not
the Company, as defendants.  The Adams suit names the Company, the
members of the Board of Directors, Parent, Purchaser, and Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, the Company's financial advisor, as
defendants.  All eight lawsuits are brought by purported
stockholders, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of stockholders, alleging that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the Offer and the Merger by
purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, and that the
Company (as applicable), Parent, and Purchaser aided and abetted
the alleged breaches.  The Adams and Abril complaints allege that
the Company's Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 failed to disclose certain material information to the
Company's stockholders.  All eight lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Offer
and the Merger and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.  The Schaefer, Stackewicz, Jiannaras, Hogan and
Adams complaints also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement
and/or the proposed transaction.  The Hogan, Minneapolis
Firefighters' Relief Association and Abril complaints additionally
seek compensatory and/or recissory damages.

On February 28, 2011, the Company announced that the Company,
Parent and Purchaser entered into a memorandum of understanding
providing for the settlement of all eight lawsuits.  The MOU
provides, among other things, that, in consideration for the
settlement of all eight lawsuits, the Company, Parent and
Purchaser will amend the Merger Agreement to (i) extend the
initial expiration date of the Offer from March 10, 2011 to
March 21, 2011, (ii) eliminate the Company's so-called "force-the-
vote" covenant contained in Section 5.4(c) of the Merger
Agreement, (iii) reduce the Termination Fee payable to Parent from
$52,500,000 to $40,000,000 and (iv) eliminate Purchaser's right to
exercise the Top-Up Option contained in Section 1.4 of the Merger
Agreement.  The Company will also make certain additional
disclosures regarding the background of the events leading to the
signing of the Merger Agreement on January 27, 2011 and with
respect to certain of the analyses undertaken by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the financial advisor's
assessment of the fairness to the Company's stockholders, from a
financial point of view, of the $19.00 net per Share Offer Price
and Merger Consideration.

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


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Financial Corporation continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit 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 February 9, 2010, an amended complaint to a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit by the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System was filed in the United States
District Court in Rhode Island against TFC and three of its
present and former officers. The original complaint, filed on
August 13, 2009, contained claims only against Textron, its
Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations
or omissions related to Cessna and Textron Financial. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Automotive
Industries Pension Trust Fund has been appointed lead plaintiff in
the case. 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. Textron Financial believes that this lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Highlander Hybrid Inverter
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Toyota sold its 2006 Highlander Hybrid knowing it had a defective
inverter assembly that causes it to lose power on the highway.

A copy of the Complaint in Gaal, et ux. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02119 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Frank W. Ferguson, Esq.
          Denis M. Delja, Esq.
          ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 670-1600
          E-mail: marias@aogllp.com


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Suit vs. TEP Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit filed against a principal
subsidiary of UniSource Energy Corporation 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.

Tucson Electric Power Company was a defendant in a class action
filed in February 2009, in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation. The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the rights of way for
defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly
granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was
inadequate. The plaintiffs were requesting, among other things,
that the transmission lines on these lands be removed. In June
2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit on procedural grounds. In March 2010, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final
judgment dismissing the case in April 2010. The plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in May
2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant the rights of way that
were the subject of the now-dismissed complaint. In June 2010, the
BIA found that the Notice of Appeal failed to meet the minimum
filing requirements. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new
Notices of Appeal concerning the same rights of way. TEP cannot
predict the outcome of these appeals.

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


UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that Guatemalans who were deliberately infected
with syphilis or gonorrhoea in medical tests in the 1940s are
suing the US government for compensation.

Hundreds of Guatemalan prisoners, psychiatric patients and orphans
were infected without their consent in a program to study
penicillin.

A class action lawsuit was filed by lawyers for the Guatemalans
and their relatives.

The US apologized last year for the "reprehensible" experiments.

But lawyers said the Obama administration had not responded to a
request for an out-of-court compensation settlement.

The tests were kept secret for decades, until a medical historian
uncovered hidden records and made them public last year.

The study carried out by US scientists took place in Guatemala
between 1946 and 1948.

Evidence of the program was unearthed by Prof Susan Reverby at
Wellesley College in the US.

The Guatemalan government of the day gave permission for the
tests, she said.

But the people infected were unaware they were being experimented
on.

In the experiments, researchers bribed care workers to let them
inject their charges, while prisoners were encouraged to sleep
with infected prostitutes.

Current Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom called the tests a
"crime against humanity" when they came to light.


USA TRUCK: Expects Approval of Suit Settlement Later This Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
USA Truck, Inc., is expecting approval of a settlement of the
class action lawsuit filed by Hermes Cerdenia later this year,
according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On July 2, 2010, a former driver employee filed a lawsuit against
the Company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code and seeking certification of the suit as a class action to
include "all individuals currently and formerly employed in
California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions."  The
Company has successfully removed the case to the United States
District Court, Central District of California and has filed an
answer denying the plaintiff's allegations.  The lawsuit seeks
monetary damages for the alleged violations.  In February 2011,
settlement of the lawsuit was negotiated through mediation subject
to the District Court's review and approval.  Such approval is
expected later in 2011.


VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Upon completion of Valassis Communications, Inc.'s acquisition of
ADVO Inc. in March 2007, the Company assumed responsibility for
ADVO's pending securities class action lawsuits.  In September
2006, three securities class action lawsuits (Robert Kelleher v.
ADVO, Inc., et al., Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Richard L.
Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al) were filed against ADVO and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut by certain ADVO shareholders seeking to certify a
class of all persons who purchased ADVO stock between July 6, 2006
and August 30, 2006.  The cases were consolidated under a single
action titled Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al. , Civil
Case No. 3:06CV01422(AVC) and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed on June 8, 2007.  The complaint generally alleges ADVO
violated federal securities law by making a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning ADVO's business and
financial results in connection with the proposed merger and, as a
result, the price of ADVO's stock was allegedly inflated.
On August 24, 2007, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint, which was denied.  On August 29, 2008, plaintiff moved
for certification of the case as a class action.  This motion was
granted on March 27, 2009.  On October 28, 2009, the parties
entered into an agreement providing for the settlement of the
action and filed papers seeking preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  Following preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice, on March 3, 2010, the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut issued its order of
final approval of the settlement.  No appeal was filed from the
final order and the settlement amount of $12.5 million was paid
from the proceeds of ADVO's directors and officers' insurance
policy, with no adverse impact to Valassis' financial statements.

No updates were provided in 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.


VERENIUM CORP: Appeals in Shareholder Suit Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed against
Verenium Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's
March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December
2002 in a U.S. federal district court, or the Court. This lawsuit
is part of a series of related lawsuits in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted an Initial Public Offering, or IPO
of their common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement. On August 31, 2005, the Court
reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the
modified settlement. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final
Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the lower Court's earlier decision certifying as
class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases." The
Company is not one of the six focus cases. Thereafter, the
District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO
Cases pending the outcome of the plaintiffs' petition to the
Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs
may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court.
Accordingly, the settlement as originally negotiated was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and will not be
finally approved. On or about August 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed
amended complaints in the six focus cases, and thereafter moved
for certification of the classes and appointment of lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in those cases. The six focus case
issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in December 2007. The Court denied the motions to
dismiss on March 16, 2008. On October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs
withdrew their class certification motion. On February 25, 2009,
liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the district court that a
settlement of the IPO Cases had been agreed to in principle,
subject to formal approval by the parties and preliminary and
final approval by the court. On April 2, 2009, the parties
submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the court and moved
for preliminary approval thereof. On June 11, 2009, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the tentative settlement and
ordered that notice of the settlement to be published and mailed.
The District Court held a final fairness hearing on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court certified the
settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final approval to
the settlement. On or about October 23, 2009, three shareholders
filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class Certification
Order, objecting to the District Court's final approval order and,
in particular, asserting that the District Court's certification
of the settlement classes violates the Second Circuit's earlier
class certification decisions in the IPO Cases. Beginning on
October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders also filed direct
appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement. If the
settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in
the dismissal of all claims against the Company and its officers
and directors with prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of
the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance.

The Company is covered by a claims-made liability insurance policy
which it believes will satisfy any potential liability of the
Company under this settlement. Due to the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, and because the objecting shareholders are seeking
to challenge the settlement on appeal, the ultimate outcome of
this matter cannot be predicted.

Cambridge, Mass.-based Verenium Corporation (NASDAQ: VRNM) --
http://www.verenium.com/-- is a pioneer in the development and
commercialization of high-performance enzymes for use in
industrial processes.  Verenium currently sells enzymes developed
using its R&D capabilities to industrial customers globally for
use in markets including biofuels, animal health and oil seed
processing


VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Calif. Suit to be Heard on April 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verigy Ltd. and its co-defendants' motion to stay a putative class
action in California in favor of litigation before a Massachusetts
court is scheduled for hearing on April 22, 2011, according to the
Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On December 1, 2010, the Company, along with LTX-Credence
Corporation, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation and
Lobster-2 Merger Corporation, were named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint, captioned Khan v. LTX-Credence
Corp., et. al., 1-10-cv188773 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California.  That action, purportedly brought on behalf
of a class of shareholders, alleges that LTX-Credence's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger by, among other things, failing to (i) maximize shareholder
value, (ii) obtain the best financial and other terms, (iii) sell
the company in a fair process, and (iv) act in the best interests
of public shareholders.  The complaint further alleges that the
director defendants breached fiduciary duties in seeking to
benefit themselves improperly, and that the non-LTX-Credence
defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, other equitable
relief, including to enjoin LTX-Credence and Verigy from
consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs.  On
February 2, 2011, this action was consolidated with two other
similar actions that were filed in the California Superior Court
(Verigy was not named as a defendant in either of these two
complaints).  On February 4, 2011, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to stay the California proceedings in
favor of the litigation pending in the Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The hearing on this motion is set
for April 22, 2011.


VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Brookshire Suit to be Heard on March 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verigy Ltd. and its co-defendants' motion to stay a putative class
action in California captioned Brookshire v. LTX Credence Corp.,
et al., in favor of litigation before a Massachusetts court will
be heard on March 30, 2011, according to the Company's March 7,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On December 17, 2010, the Company, along with LTX-Credence
Corporation, its directors, Verigy Ltd., Lobster-1 Merger
Corporation and Lobster-2 Merger Corporation, were named as
defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned
Brookshire v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., CV 10 5773 filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class
of shareholders, also alleges that LTX-Credence's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger with Verigy, and also seeks declaratory, injunctive and
other equitable relief, including enjoining LTX-Credence and the
Company from consummating the merger.  On January 19, 2011, the
Company and the other defendants filed a motion to stay this
action in favor of the litigation pending in Massachusetts
Superior Court.  The hearing on this motion to stay is set for
March 30, 2011.


VIVUS INC: Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been stayed in the securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed against Vivus, Inc., 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.

A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v.
Vivus, Inc., et al. is pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, which asserts claims for
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal securities
laws, purportedly relating to statements allegedly made by the
Company in connection with its New Drug Application, or NDA, for
QNEXA as a treatment for obesity.  The essential factual
allegation is that the Company and its officers misled the
investing public regarding the prospects for QNEXA's NDA approval,
and the drug's efficacy and safety.  On February 2, 2011, the
court granted a stipulation and order appointing a lead plaintiff
and a lead counsel for the class.  On February 3, 2011, the court
granted a stipulation and order requiring the lead plaintiff to
file any amendment to the operative complaint no later than 60
days from February 2, 2011, with the defendants' answer or motion
to dismiss to be filed no later than 60 days after plaintiffs file
the amended complaint.  In the event the defendants file a motion
to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition to the motion must be filed no
later than 60 days after the filing of the motion, with
defendants' reply to the opposition being filed no later than 45
days after the filing of plaintiffs' opposition.  Discovery is
stayed in the Kovtun matter pending resolution of the defendants'
motion to dismiss.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Consolidated Suit Over Sale to M&T Bank Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Wilmington Trust
Corporation and its directors over the Company's sale of company
stock to, and proposed merger with, M&T Bank Corporation, 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 31, 2010, Wilmington Trust entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger pursuant to which M&T will acquire all of
Wilmington Trust's outstanding shares of common stock for
approximately $351 million, after which Wilmington Trust will
merge into an M&T controlled entity.  The proposed transaction has
been approved by Wilmington Trust's Board of Directors.

On November 5, 2010, two purported stockholders of Wilmington
Trust Corporation filed lawsuits in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Medich v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et
al., C.A. No. 5958 (Del. Ch.) and Yi v. Wilmington Trust
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5959 (Del. Ch.).  On November 9,
2010, a third purported stockholder of Wilmington Trust
Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery
captioned Burie v. Foley, et al., C.A. No. 5970 (Del. Ch.).  On
December 8, 2010, these complaints were consolidated under the
caption In re Wilmington Trust Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 5958-VCL (Del. Ch.).  On December 10, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint.  On
December 20, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, each
of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, M&T,
and MTB One, Inc (Merger Sub).  It is brought on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's common stockholders and seeks a
declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder
value in connection with the merger, and also alleges that M&T and
Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.  It
further alleges that the Director Defendants improperly favored
M&T and discouraged alternative bids by agreeing to the merger
agreement's no-solicitation provision, termination fee provision,
and notification clause.  In addition, the Consolidated Complaint
claims that the consideration to be received by the Company's
common stockholders is inadequate and unfair.  Finally, the
Consolidated Complaint claims that the Form S-4 filed by the
defendants in connection with the merger omits material
information.  It alleges deficiencies in the descriptions of
negotiations with interested parties, failure to disclose the
identity of one financial advisor and the fees payable to all
financial advisors, and failure to adequately explain the
financial advisors' valuation analyses.  The Consolidated
Complaint claims that, without this information, the Company's
stockholders cannot meaningfully determine whether or not to
approve the merger. The Consolidated Complaint seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, a
constructive trust over any benefits improperly received by the
defendants, and costs, including plaintiffs' attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The Company and M&T believe that the claims asserted are without
merit and intend to defend vigorously against this lawsuit.


WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals in Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving the settlement of the issues
raised in the securities class action lawsuit filed against World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., remain pending, according to the
Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to its
initial public offering in 1999. According to the claims, the
underwriters, who were also named as defendants, allegedly engaged
in manipulative practices by, among other things, pre-selling
allotments of shares of the Company's stock in return for
undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers and
entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price. The complaint further alleges
that the Company knew or should have known of such unlawful
practices. In or around March 2009, the parties agreed to a global
settlement of the litigation in its entirety. On April 2, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, which was granted by the court by order dated June 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, and various objectors have filed notices to
appeal this decision. The Company is a party to the settlement and
is not one of the parties appealing the settlement's approval. The
Company is unable to predict whether these appeals will be
successful, but assuming they are unsuccessful and the settlement
is completed, no financial obligation has been or will be incurred
by the Company.

WWE, a publicly traded company (NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media
organization  and recognized leader in global entertainment. The
Company consists of a portfolio of  businesses that create and
deliver original content 52 weeks a year to a global  audience.
WWE is committed to family-friendly,  PG content across all of its
platforms including television programming, pay-per-view, digital
media and publishing. WWE programming is broadcast in more than
145 countries and 30 languages and reaches more than 500 million
homes worldwide. The Company is headquartered in Stamford,
Conn., with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London,
Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo and Mexico City. Additional information
on WWE (NYSE: WWE) can be found at http://wwe.com/and
http://corporate.wwe.com/ For information on WWE's global
activities, go to http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/


ZORAN CORP: Faces Two Class Suits Relating to CSR Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action lawsuits were filed in February against
Zoran Corporation relating to the Company's entry into a merger
agreement with CSR plc, according to the Company's March 7, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 23, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in Delaware Chancery Court by Judy Kauffman Goldstein, an alleged
stockholder of Zoran Corporation who seeks to represent a class
comprised of Zoran stockholders. The complaint in this action
names as defendants Zoran, each member of Zoran's board of
directors, CSR plc, and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc. The Goldstein
complaint alleges that the director defendants breached fiduciary
duties assertedly owed to Zoran and its stockholders by entering
into the merger agreement with CSR that was announced on February
22, 2011; that CSR and Zeiss aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty; and that if the merger is allowed to
proceed, the stockholders will suffer damages because their shares
will be acquired for less than their actual value. The plaintiff
seeks an order of the Court certifying the action as a class
action; rescinding the merger and preliminarily enjoining the
defendants from consummating the merger; enjoining the defendants
from taking any further action to interfere with a consent
solicitation previously commenced by Ramius Value and Opportunity
Master Fund Ltd.; and awarding damages, attorney's fees and costs.

On February 25, 2011, a second purported class action was filed in
the same court by Lawrence Zucker, an alleged stockholder of
Zoran, who seeks to represent the same purported class. The
complaint in this action names as defendants the members of
Zoran's board of directors and Zoran. The allegations contained in
the Zucker complaint are largely similar to the allegations
contained in the Goldstein complaint, except that the Zucker
complaint also alleges that Zoran aided and abetted alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the director defendants; does not
name CSR or Zeiss as defendants; and does not allege that CSR or
Zeiss aided or abetted any alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiff seeks similar relief to that sought in the Goldstein
complaint, except that the Zucker complaint does not seek any
relief with respect to the Ramius consent solicitation.

Based in Sunnyvale, Calif., Zoran Corp. develops and market
integrated circuits and related products used in digital
versatile disc players, movie and home theater systems, digital
cameras and video editing systems.


* Individuals Can't Settle Class Action After Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that individual
litigants lose their right to settle once a class action has been
certified, according to a recent decision in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

Justice Paul Perell found that only class representatives acting
on the advice of class counsel have the right to accept settlement
offers and that they can reject them without notifying class
members about their contents.

"Class members do not have the right to individually accept
settlement offers.  Giving them the right to do so destroys the
representative nature of the proceedings," Justice Perell wrote in
his March 3 decision in Berry v. Pulley, a class action involving
pilots from Air Canada and the former Air Ontario airline."

It follows from this conclusion that if class members do not have
the right to individually accept settlement offers during the
communal stages of the action, they need not be given notice and
be tantalized by a settlement offer that they cannot accept and
which is opposed by their representative."

The right to settle will revive once the common issues trial is
complete and matters dealing with individual issues begin for
specific class members, according to the decision.

Kirk Baert, a class actions lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP, says the
decision makes sense because of the huge numbers involved in many
class actions.

"Those who aren't keen on being part of a group have complete
freedom of action at the opt-out stage and they can object to a
settlement, but you couldn't have a situation where you need the
approval of 1,000 or 10,000 people to make offers to settle or to
accept them," he says.

The Class Proceedings Act enshrines the special status of class
representatives.  At the same time, the representative's duty to
act in the best interests of the class as a whole tempers the lack
of democracy, says Mr. Baert.

"It's not like a regular lawsuit.  If you want to have a regular
lawsuit, you're free to have one at your own expense with your own
risk.  Then you'll have 100% control over whether it's settled or
litigated.

If you consent to being part of a larger entity, you lose power,
especially if the representative plaintiff is on the hook if the
case goes south.

In Berry, the plaintiff class includes 171 Air Ontario pilots.

The case also involves a defendant class certified by the court:
1,682 Air Canada pilots who quit their union in a dispute over the
integration of their Air Ontario counterparts following the
airline's purchase by the national carrier in 1991.

The Air Canada pilots were divided into subclasses based on their
involvement in the dispute when the action was certified in 2001.

The plaintiffs allege conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and
negligent misrepresentation in the claim that hasn't been proven
in court.  Experts for the plaintiffs have estimated the damages
suffered at around $150 million or $80,000 to $100,000 per
defendant class member.

Justice Perell made the ruling after counsel for the plaintiff
class made an offer to settle with individual members of two
subclasses as the common issues trial approached.  It's still set
to begin on March 14 and run for 10 weeks.

In December, plaintiff counsel Russell Raikes submitted an offer
to settle the claim against the vast majority of rank-and-file
members of the Air Canada union who publicly opposed the Air
Ontario integration for $5,000.

He also asked that the offer be circulated to members of the
class.  The representative defendants rejected the offer.

Steve Waller, who's acting for the defendants, says the ability to
settle claims with individual class members could be particularly
damaging in the more typical case where a plaintiff class takes on
a corporate defendant.

"If a corporate defendant could make offers and pick members off
one by one until the class is half the size it was before, it
would virtually destroy the benefit of having a class action," he
says.

The defendants in the case are seeking indemnification from the
Air Line Pilots Association in a third-party action.  Brian Shell,
who represents the association, says he was happy with the
judgment.  Without limiting individual settlement offers, he
believes few counsel would be willing to take on class actions.

"It's the unity of the class that's critical to making the whole
system work.  If you don't have that, you might as well have 5,000
individual actions," he says.


* U.S. For-Profit Colleges Face Class Actions From Students
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barker, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
attacking the quality and motives of the for-profit college sector
has become a popular exercise these days.

Regulators have called for tighter controls.  Investigations have
pointed to grade inflation, misleading success stories and
questionable recruiting tactics.

And across the country, lawsuits like one crawling through the
Madison County court could add flames to the fire.

The suit -- filed in 2008 against Sanford Brown College, a
powerhouse in the industry -- claims the school's Collinsville
campus misrepresented the ease with which students could transfer
to other schools or find jobs upon graduation.

The litigation got a significant boost late last year when a judge
granted it class action certification.  That opens the suit not
only to the medical assistant students who first sued the school,
but also to more than 1,500 former students.

It's the sort of thing that, if successful, could spark even more
lawsuits and have significant ramifications for the industry.

"If it really starts to snowball, we could be talking about a
serious expense," said Trace Urdan, an analyst for investment
banking firm Signal Hill who tracks the industry.

Industry experts say there's already been an increase in such
suits, with the sector under intense scrutiny from Congress, the
president and various state regulators.  They're all looking for
ways to more tightly regulate an industry that enrolls 1 of every
10 college students, claiming more than a quarter of federal
financial aid while accounting for more than 40% of loan defaults.
In the middle are students claiming they were lured onto these
campuses by lies.

There is, from a legal perspective, blood in the water.

"You don't have to be an ambulance chaser to know this is a
vulnerable industry," Mr. Urdan said.

Experts say it's a trend being pushed by increased media attention
and by lawyers who see the lawsuits as low-risk, high-reward
opportunities.  They cost little to file, particularly when
compared with environmental or medical claims that require costly
experts and expensive tests.

It doesn't help that the industry's own successes have made it a
prime target, said Harris Miller, president of the Association of
Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry trade group.

Back when it represented less than 4% of higher education, the
industry didn't attract much attention.

"But when you are at 12 percent of higher education, you suddenly
start seeing that there are some pretty deep pockets out there,"
Mr. Miller said.

And while many of the lawsuits get tossed out by judges, there has
been just enough success to keep them coming.  Consider last
year's decision by Career Education Corp., the Hoffman Estates
firm whose holdings include Sanford Brown, to pay $40 million to
settle a lawsuit in San Francisco.

Students of its California Culinary Academy had claimed the school
misrepresented its reputation and employment prospects students
would face upon graduation.

These claims are fairly typical of those made in lawsuits that
have been filed in the St. Louis area and across the nation,
focusing on the information given to students during their
recruitment.

Such is the case with the Madison County lawsuit, filed on behalf
of students who enrolled in the 18-month medical assistants
program at Sanford Brown's Collinsville campus.  Among the
allegations are claims that prospective students were given
misleading placement data -- suggesting they would have an easier
time finding jobs -- and promises that their credits would
transfer to other schools.

Among those students was Jenna Lilley, of Staunton, who enrolled
in the program thinking it would further her goal of becoming a
registered nurse.  She said she made it nearly two semesters
before learning her credits wouldn't transfer.  So she dropped out
and started over at Lewis and Clark Community College.

That two-semester detour, she said, cost $9,000 in financial aid
and loans, making it difficult to get aid at Lewis and Clark.

"I not only wasted my time and money, but I've missed out on
opportunities I could have had," Ms. Lilley said.  "I could
already have been a nurse.  Instead, I'm waiting tables and trying
to work my way through college."

The case, so far, has not gone well for Sanford Brown and Career
Education.  The company, however, is appealing the class action
certification and says the legal claims made in the lawsuit are
without merit.

"While the trial judge has certified a class, he has made no
findings that the school engaged in improper conduct or violated
any law," said Mark Spencer, spokesman for Career Education.

It's likely to be many months before the appeal is decided. But
already, attorneys representing the students are giving thought to
the possibility of additional lawsuits against other for-profits
in the region.

"It's something we are considering," said John Carey, of Carey,
Danis & Lowe, which has partnered with a Kansas City firm that has
targeted for-profits on multiple occasions.  "I don't think these
schools, for the most part, are really helping their students."

The notion of lawyers actively seeking new cases isn't exactly
what the industry wants to think about -- particularly in light of
the resources being expended in Washington to fend off new
regulations and requirements that, some say, could force the
closing of some for-profit degree programs.

Among the bigger fears of the industry is the potential for one of
the lawsuits to prove there was some sort of fraudulent activity
traceable to the highest levels of these companies.  But most say
that's unlikely to happen.

"They've got a lot of people working for them making sure they are
following the rules. These are big companies," said Kevin Kinser,
an education professor at the State University of New York at
Albany who studies the for-profit sector.

The industry tends to be more vulnerable on the local level
because of its heavy reliance on recruitment to fill classrooms.
It's not uncommon for some of that recruiting to be handled by
outside firms, and recruiters have typically been paid, at least
partially, based on the number of students they recruit.

There's also a lack of clear-cut rules on what, exactly, those
recruiters are allowed to say to prospective students, some
industry observers say.

And yet even if the industry isn't suffering financial losses in
the courtroom, lawsuits do take their toll.

"It's more than a monetary issue.  It's a reputation thing,"
Mr. Kinser said. "There is a drumbeat of negative attention."


                            *********

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  * * *