CAR_Public/110318.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 55

                             Headlines

15 BROAD STREET: Sued for Breach of Contract and Fraud
99 CENTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Challenge Summary Judgment Ruling
ADVANCE AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Stone" Suit in California
ADVANCE AMERICA: Suit vs. McKenzie Remains Pending in Florida

ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Remanded to Pa. Trial Court
ADVANCE AMERICA: Continues to Defend "King" Suit in Pennsylvania
ADVANCE AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Still Pending
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Time to Appeal Suit Settlement Expires

AIR TRANSPORT: Immigration Law Violation Suit Still Pending
AMERICAN EQUITY: Awaits Final OK on Settlement in "Stephens" Suit
AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Annuity Suit
AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Defends Class Action Suit in California
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Oppose Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit

ANADIGICS INC: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss to Be Completed Soon
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Settlement of Alfimeprase Suit
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Variagenics-Related Securities Suit Still Pending
ASCENA RETAIL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS: Faces Class Action Over Indonesia Reports

AUTOBYTEL INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Securities Settlement
AXA EQUITABLE: Awaits Final Approval of "Eagan" Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Widespread Fraud in Connection with HAMP
BARNES & NOBLE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Mediation Session Set for April 11

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Funding of Settlement in Calif. Suit Commences
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Time to Appeal Settlement Order to Expire May 1
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Is Ongoing in Fresno Suit
BOB EVANS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Mimi's Cafe Settlement
BUSINESS FIN'L SERVICES: Accused of Violating Calif. Usury Law

CALIFORNIA: Franchise Tax Board Sued Over Braille Inavailability
CENTER FOR ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE: Lawyers Sued Over Settlement
CHEMTURA CORP: Bankruptcy Court OKs Settlement in 3 Georgia Suits
CHEMTURA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Urethane Suit
CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement

CHINA AGRITECH: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CIENA CORP: Appeals From Class Suit Settlement Order Pending
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: March 24 Hearing Set for PPO Settlement
CIT GROUP: Shareholder Suit Remains Pending in New York
CITY HOLDING: Unit Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Motion

CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces "Weitzner" Suit in Massachusetts
DOT HILL: Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissed in 2009
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Deadline to Appeal Tenn. Suit Dismissal Expires
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Adjudication of Claims in Colo. Action
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Blackstone Merger Suits

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Icahn Merger Suits
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Judgment Proceedings in Haifa Suit Still Pending
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Two Class Claims in Haifa
FAMILY VIDEO: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over "Upweighting" Scam

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Judge Ends Class Action Over Later Deliveries
FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Final Judgment in Securities Suit Pending
FINISAR CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California
FIRST DATA CORP: Appeal in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit Still Pending
FORCE PROTECTION: Awaits Final Order on Shareholder Settlement

GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Settlement in "Solis" Suit Reached
GLOBAL DEFENSE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey Litigation Set for May 2011
H&R BLOCK: Still Awaits Consolidation Order in Wage & Hour Suits
H&R BLOCK: Appeal on Reversal of Decertification Still Pending

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consumer Claims Settlement Under Advisement
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Reaches Settlement in "McInerney & Zand" Suit
HSBC HOLDINGS: To Appeal Illinois Court Ruling in "Jaffe" Suit
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: To Present Shareholder Suit Settlements
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in IPO Suit

INTERMUNE INC: Answering Briefs on Dismissal Appeal Due March 24
INVESTORS TITLE: Still Defends "Price-Fixing Conspiracy" Lawsuit
JACKSON HEWITT: "Harper" Class Suit in Pre-trial Stage
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Decision in "Wooley" Suit Remains Pending
JACKSON HEWITT: Maryland Court Affirms "Gomez" Suit Dismissal

JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal in "Norris" Suit Remains Pending
JACKSON HEWITT: Missouri Court Reverses Dismissal of "Fugate" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Affirmed
JACKSON HEWITT: Motion to Dismiss "Carriere" Suit Remains Pending
JO-ANN STORES: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Ohio

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
KOREAN AIRLINES: Settles Airfare-Fixing Conspiracy Class Action
LEVEL 3: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
LIFE PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over Life Settlement Policies
LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Sale of Viatical Settlements

LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Response to Massachusetts Complaint Due Today
LTX-CREDENCE CORP: "Keuler" Suit Still Stayed
MAGMA DESIGN: National Union to Appeal $5 Million Judgment
MATERION CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Anthony" Suit
MATILDA JANE: Recalls 1,500 Girl's Dress

MEDTRONIC INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Minnesota
NAT'L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC: Sued for Restricting School Transfer
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
NEW YORK CITY: Settlement Reached in Foster Class Action
NORBOURG: Class Action Lawyers Seek $11 Million in Legal Fees

OILSANDS QUEST: Faces Securities Class Suit From Investors
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Sued Over Unlawful Retention of Customer Info
SCIQUEST INC: Appeals in Consolidated Suit Remain Pending
SECURITIES AMERICA: States Oppose Preliminary Injunction
SEQUENOM INC: Appeals From Settlement in IPO Suit Still Pending

SEQUENOM INC: Issues 6.4 Million Shares to Class Action Plaintiffs
SMITH & WESSON: Awaits Court Decision on Summary Judgment Motion
SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
STANDARD PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Chinese Drywall Suits
STATE AUTO: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Ohio Remains Pending

STERLING BANCSHARES: "Bailey" Suit Over Comerica Merger Dismissed
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Wash. Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Hearing Set for March 22 in ERISA Suit
SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls 1,350 Suzuki QuadSport ATVs
SYNGENTA CROP: Witness Hearing in Atrazine Suit Moved to April

TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: No Action in Locklear Suit Since '09
THOR INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Class Action Suits in Louisiana
TOLL BROTHERS: Court Approves Settlement in Pennsylvania Suit
TREX COMPANY: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Product Defects
TREX COMPANY: Faces Product Defects Class Suit in Kentucky

TRINITY CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Donation Tax Credits
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Still Defends Dentist Association Suit
UNION FIRST: Class Suit Vs. Union Mortgage Remains Pending
UNITED STATES: Guatamelans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Defends Class Suits Over Emergent Merger

VALHI INC: NL Unit Still Defends Suits Over Former Operations
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit in Calif.
VERTRO INC: Appeal From Final Judgment in Fla. Suit Still Pending
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
XETA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 3 Suits Over Proposed Merger With PAETEC

ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Still in Prelim. Stage


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConocoPhillips Posts $8.776BB ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consumers Has $40MM Dec. 31 Abatement Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westar Energy Records $125.99MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,575 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A. O. Smith Still Involved in Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $6.8MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Records $1.1BB Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $18.1MM Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,316 Injury Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Integrys Asset Retirement Obligation at $320.9MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Records $43.5MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin Public Posts $18.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Subject to Exposure Actions in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concept Roofing Penalized for Safety Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 82 Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Belden at Feb. 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Involved in 126 Pending Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $11.3M Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phelps Dodge Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Posts $631MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Subject to 52,220 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Burik Case Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Joins Motion to Dismiss Kraska Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Love Case Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Schoppert Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action v. Vector Group Pending in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 29,035 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind. Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Council Fined for Breaches at Depot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shengxuan Company Penalized for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GSA, Four Firms Fined $100T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oney Case v. KCSR Filed on Feb. 25 in Jefferson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition in Marze Filed on Feb. 28 in Jefferson

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bittner Case v. 88 Firms Filed Feb. 16 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Notch Penalized $4.8T for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eco-Industrial to Pay C$35T for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Victims Nearing $43MM Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesdale Resident Wins Case v. Hawkins & Holmes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gilkisons to Settle $200T for Disability Fraud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surrey Firm Fined C$15T for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheltenham Postmaster's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maple Case v. 68 Firms Filed on Feb. 4 in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GHAPS Board Grants $76,000 for Asbestos Cleanup



                             *********

15 BROAD STREET: Sued for Breach of Contract and Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tretter, derivatively on behalf of the Downtown Condominium
and also on behalf himself and others similarly situated, v. 15
Broad Street LLC, et al., Case No. 103123/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty. March 14, 2011), accuses Broad Street of breach of
contract, fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment in connection
with the construction and sale of condominium units in the
building premises located in New York at the building known as the
Downtown Condominium, having addresses of 15 Broad Street and 23
Wall Street.  The Plaintiff seeks is damages in the amount of
$10,000,000, or such greater amount as may be established at
trial, together with interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Cobb, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: cobb@whafh.com


99 CENTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim 99 Cents
Only Stores is selling itself too cheaply to its own management,
for $19.09 a share, a 14% premium over the closing price the day
before the announcement, in a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Challenge Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California has denied a writ filed by ABM
Industries Incorporated challenging its December 28, 2010,
decision granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a
consolidated lawsuit, according to the Company's March 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the consolidated cases of Augustus,
Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services filed
July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County. The Augustus case involves allegations that the Company
violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest breaks. On
January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a class action
by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. On
October 6, 2010, the Company moved to decertify the class and for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment on
the rest break claim. On December 28, 2010, the Superior Court
decertified the portion of the class related to the meal break
claims and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs with
respect to the rest break issue. On January 21, 2011, the Company
filed a writ challenging the Court's decision, which writ was
denied. No trial court date has been set. The Company intends to
challenge the Court's decision. An estimate of the potential
exposure, if any, cannot be made at this time.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Stone" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., continues to defend
itself in the class action lawsuit entitled Kerri Stone v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., according to the
Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 16, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego against
the Company and its California subsidiary. Defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California. The amended complaint alleges violations of the
California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California
Unfair Competition Law and seeks an order requiring defendants to
disgorge and make restitution of all revenue and loan principal,
pay three times the amount of damages the class members actually
incurred, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and
punitive damages. The complaint also seeks certain injunctive
relief. The Company anticipates that the case will proceed to
trial during 2011.

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- is the country's
leading provider of non-bank cash advance services, with
approximately 2,352 centers and 62 limited licensees in 30 states,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Company offers convenient,
less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by
traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding
member of the Community Financial Services Association of America
(CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive
consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry
practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Suit vs. McKenzie Remains Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by former customers against Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending
in Florida, according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance of Florida,
LLC, are defendants in a putative class action lawsuit commenced
by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, on January 11,
2001, and a third named class representative, Tiffany Kelly, in
the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. This putative
class action alleges that McKenzie, by and through the actions of
certain officers, directors, and employees, engaged in unfair and
deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's criminal usury
statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act, and the Florida
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit seeks
unspecified damages, and the named defendants could be required to
refund fees and interest collected, refund the principal amount of
cash advances, pay multiple damages, and pay other monetary
penalties. Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be subject to
binding arbitration, which the Company expects to proceed in
parallel with this case. However, the trial court has denied the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Ms. Kelly's claims.
The Florida Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision,
but certified a "Question of Great Public Importance" to the
Florida Supreme Court regarding their decision and the Company
intends to appeal this decision to the Florida Supreme Court.

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- is the country's
leading provider of non-bank cash advance services, with
approximately 2,352 centers and 62 limited licensees in 30 states,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Company offers convenient,
less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by
traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding
member of the Community Financial Services Association of America
(CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive
consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry
practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Remanded to Pa. Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love
and Bonny Bleacher against Advance America, Cash Advance Centers,
Inc., et al., was remanded to a Pennsylvania trial court,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the Company and two of its subsidiaries alleging that the Company
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and fees
in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law. The
complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that
the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a line of
credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the collection of the
monthly participation fee, and payment of damages equal to three
times the monthly participation fees paid by customers since June
2006, which could total approximately $135 million in damages,
plus attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2008, the trial court
entered an order compelling the purported class representatives to
arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, unless determined
otherwise by the arbiter. All parties appealed that order. On
February 28, 2011, in a non-precedential opinion, the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on
the validity of the class action waivers. The parties to the
litigation will await further instruction from the trial court as
to the reinstitution of proceedings before that court.

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- is the country's
leading provider of non-bank cash advance services, with
approximately 2,352 centers and 62 limited licensees in 30 states,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Company offers convenient,
less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by
traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding
member of the Community Financial Services Association of America
(CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive
consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry
practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Continues to Defend "King" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is awaiting further
court instructions from a Pennsylvania trial court regarding the
restitution of proceedings of the class action lawsuit filed by
Raymond King and Sandra Coates, according to the Company's
March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which the Company
previously marketed, processed, and serviced cash advances in
Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
various causes of action, including that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal cash advance loans in
Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act. The complaint alleges that
BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender" and that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in fact." The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and
the trebling of any compensatory damages. In January 2008, the
trial court entered an order compelling the purported class
representatives to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis,
unless determined otherwise by the arbiter. In April 2010, the
United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stolt-Nielsen.
On February 28, 2011, in a non-precedential opinion, the U.S.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on
the validity of the class action waivers. The parties to the
litigation will await further instruction from the trial court as
to the reinstitution of proceedings before that court.

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- is the country's
leading provider of non-bank cash advance services, with
approximately 2,352 centers and 62 limited licensees in 30 states,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Company offers convenient,
less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by
traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding
member of the Community Financial Services Association of America
(CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive
consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry
practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Yulon Clerk against Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.'s subsidiaries remains
pending in a Pennsylvania trial court, according to the Company's
March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against the Company's subsidiaries Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, Inc. and NCAS of Delaware,
LLC, as well as BankWest, Inc., whose defense the Company is
handling pursuant to an indemnification agreement, and other
unrelated lenders and banks. The complaint alleged that the
practices of the Company's subsidiaries and BankWest, Inc.
violated the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Protection Act, the
Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law, and Pennsylvania
Consumer Protection Laws. The complaint seeks certification of a
class of individuals for the alleged violations, a declaration
that all loans made to class members are unenforceable, injunctive
relief, and monetary damages. The complaint repeats allegations
asserted in other putative class actions filed in Pennsylvania
that have been stayed in favor of mandatory individual
arbitrations. The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and filed
a motion to compel arbitration and stay the underlying action's
proceedings. In August 2009, the District Court issued an order
severing the claims against the individual defendants. On
September 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed three separate complaints
seeking the same relief as the April 21, 2009 complaint against
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, Inc., NCAS
of Delaware, LLC, and BankWest, Inc. The case against the
Company's Pennsylvania subsidiary was subsequently dismissed by
consent of the parties on November 11, 2009. Motions to stay and
to compel individual arbitration have been filed in the other
cases. The cases against NCAS of Delaware and Bankwest, Inc., are
now proceeding before the trial court.

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- is the country's
leading provider of non-bank cash advance services, with
approximately 2,352 centers and 62 limited licensees in 30 states,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Company offers convenient,
less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by
traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding
member of the Community Financial Services Association of America
(CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive
consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry
practices.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order granting final approval of a settlement
in the securities class action against Agilent Technologies, Inc.,
and other defendants remains pending, according to the Company's
March 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain investment bank underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering, Agilent and various of its
officers and directors at the time of the IPO.  In 2003, the Court
granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent
based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied
Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement
among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer
defendants and insurers were presented to the Court.  Under the
proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its
directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a
contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's
insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims.  However,
class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the
underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement.  On
December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs.

On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to
the full bench of the Second Circuit.  On April 6, 2007, the
Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but noted that
plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more modest
class."  On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating
the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer
defendants based on a stipulation among the parties.  Plaintiffs
have amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six
"test cases" (none of which involve Agilent).  Defendants in these
cases have moved to dismiss the amended complaints.  On March 26,
2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
parties have again reached a global settlement of the litigation
and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on
April 2, 2009.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the
full amount of settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent
would bear no financial liability.  Agilent, as well as the
officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from
the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete
dismissals from the case.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered
an order granting final approval of the settlement.  Certain
objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  That appeal is pending.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Time to Appeal Suit Settlement Expires
------------------------------------------------------------
The time for any appeal from the order approving a settlement in
class action lawsuits against Agilent Technologies, Inc., related
to its proposed acquisition of Varian, Inc., has passed without
any appeal, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On August 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California
Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel Gottlieb
Plan -- Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan
DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149132.
The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
shareholders of Varian, Inc. against Varian, its board of
directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Varian.  A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry
W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the same
court on August 7, 2009.  The actions were subsequently
consolidated under the caption In re Varian, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on August 14, 2009.  The consolidated
amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an alleged class of
Varian shareholders against Varian, its directors, Agilent and
Cobalt.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the
price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have
engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's
August 7, 2009 proxy filing are inadequate.  Agilent and Cobalt
are alleged to have aided and abetted the Varian directors'
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.
On August 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class
action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et
al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against
Varian, its directors, and Agilent.  Like the consolidated amended
complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian
shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by,
inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper
deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading
disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and
other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs).

On September 25, 2009, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class actions.  The settlement
provides, among other things, that: (i) Varian would make certain
agreed-upon disclosures designed to supplement those contained in
its definitive proxy statement filed on August 20, 2009; (ii) the
litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants;
(iii) defendants believe the claims are without merit and continue
to deny liability, but agree to settle in order to avoid the
potential cost and distraction of continued litigation and to
eliminate any risk of any delay to the acquisition; and (iv)
plaintiffs' counsel may seek fees and costs of up to $625,000,
subject to court approval.  There is to be no payment of money to
the alleged class members.  The Santa Clara Superior Court
preliminarily approved the settlement, whereupon the Court
notified the class of the settlement.  One shareholder objected,
but the Court found that the objection was not filed before the
deadline set by the Court.  On November 5, 2010, the Santa Clara
Superior Court issued its order providing final approval of the
settlement.  The Court made one change to the proposed settlement;
the Court awarded plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees in the
amount of $476,600, rather than the $625,000 they had sought.  The
time for any appeal of the Court's order has passed without any
appeal, and the Company has paid the settlement.


AIR TRANSPORT: Immigration Law Violation Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A civil action alleging violations of immigration laws against ABX
Air Inc. remains pending, according to Air Transport Services
Group, Inc.'s March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On December 31, 2008, a former ABX Air Inc. employee filed a
complaint against ABX, a total of four current and former
executives and managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and
three former executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The case was
filed as a putative class action against the defendants, and
asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO).  The complaint, which was later amended to
include a second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid
to hourly wage employees during the period from December 1999 to
January 2005.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a
motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three
of the five claims constituting the basis of Plaintiffs'
complaint.  Most recently, the Court issued a decision on
October 7, 2010, permitting the plaintiffs' to amend their
complaint for the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed
claims.  On October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants
filed an answer denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs'
second amended complaint.

The Company says that the complaint is similar to a prior
complaint filed by another former employee in April 2007.  The
prior complaint was subsequently dismissed without prejudice at
the plaintiff's request on November 3, 2008.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Awaits Final OK on Settlement in "Stephens" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company obtained
preliminary court approval of the settlement it negotiated in the
class action, Chalys M. Stephens and John P. Stephens v. American
Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et. al, the Company
disclosed in its March 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Stephens complaint was filed in the San Luis Obispo Superior
Court, San Francisco, California, on November 29, 2004.  The
plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who are California
residents age 65 and older and who either purchased their annuity
from the Company through a co-defendant marketing organization or
who purchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued
by the Company.  Following a mediation conducted on January 21,
2011, the Company reached a settlement in principal with the
plaintiffs.  Preliminary approval of the settlement was issued by
the court on March 1, 2011, and although the Company anticipate
final court approval of the settlement, there can be no assurance
of such final approval.

The settlement, if final court approval is received, will provide
a total settlement benefit of $36 million to past and present
policyholders who are members of the class and, if awarded by the
court, will provide for attorneys' fees payable to the plaintiffs'
counsel of up to $11 million, litigation expenses in an amount up
to $950,000, and incentives of $25,000 payable to each of the two
class representatives.  The net charge to operations for the
settlement (after related reductions in amortization of deferred
sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income
taxes) was $27.3 million and is included in the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2010.

American Equity is a full service underwriter of fixed annuity and
life insurance products through its wholly owned life insurance
subsidiaries.  Its business consists primarily of the sale of
fixed index and fixed rate annuities.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Annuity Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company continues to
defend itself in the action In re American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on
September 7, 2005.

The Annuity Litigation is a consolidated action of separate suits
entitled (1) McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,
and (2) Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al.  It is a
consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by
individuals, and the individuals are seeking class action status
for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the
Company.  The named plaintiffs in the consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65.  The plaintiffs seek recessionary and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.

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

The Company is vigorously defending against both class action
status as well as the underlying claims.

American Equity is a full service underwriter of fixed annuity and
life insurance products through its wholly owned life insurance
subsidiaries.  Its business consists primarily of the sale of
fixed index and fixed rate annuities.


AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Defends Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Reprographics Company is defending itself against a
purported class action alleging violations of the California Labor
Code, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, LLC, and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through October 21, 2010, filed an
action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu
thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution,
penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the court deems proper. The Company has not included any
liability in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements in
connection with this matter. The Company says it cannot reasonably
estimate the amount or range of possible loss, if any, at this
time.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Oppose Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation intends to oppose an appeal pending
in a consolidated action entitled Patrickson, et al. v. Dole Food
Co., et al., in Hawaii, according to the Company's March 10, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 1997, the Company's subsidiary, AMVAC Chemical
Corporation, was served with a Complaint(s) in which it was named
as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State
of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of
Hawaii entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al
alleging damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs'
exposure to 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane or "DBCP" while applying
the product in their native countries.  Other named defendants
include: Dole Food Co., Shell Oil Company, and Dow Chemical
Company.  The ten named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries
-- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador.  Punitive damages
are sought against each defendant.  The plaintiffs were banana
workers and allege that they were exposed to DBCP in applying the
product in their native countries.  The case was also filed as a
class action on behalf of other workers so exposed in these four
countries.  The plaintiffs allege sterility and other injuries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion
for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on
the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in
1995.  All defendants joined in this motion.  The court granted
this motion on June 9, 2009.  Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully
argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases.
On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for
reconsideration.  Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered
on July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  This appeal is presently pending.  The Company
believes that the appeal filed by plaintiffs has no merit and
intends to oppose the appeal. The Company does not believe that a
loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly,
has not set up a loss contingency with respect thereto.


ANADIGICS INC: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss to Be Completed Soon
------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on motions to dismiss filed by Anadigics, Inc., and other
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
New Jersey are expected to be completed by the end of March,
according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.  The Complaints in
the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re
Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an
Order of the District Court dated November 24, 2008, seek
unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other
things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for
its products.  On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which names the
Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007
through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was
fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding extensive oral
argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District
Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient,
but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.
The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response
to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010.  The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the
same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from
February 12, 2008 through August 7, 2008.  Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 3,
2010.  The briefing in connection with defendants' motion is
expected to be completed by the end of March 2011.

Anadigics is a provider of semiconductor solutions in the growing
broadband wireless and wireline communications markets.


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Settlement of Alfimeprase Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a settlement
it negotiated to resolve a consolidated class complaint related to
alfimeprase, a drug for treatment of acute peripheral arterial
occlusion, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 27, 2009, the Company completed a business merger with
ARCA Colorado in accordance with the terms of an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated September 24, 2008, as
amended on October 28, 2008, in which a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nuvelo, Inc. merged with and into ARCA Colorado, with ARCA
Colorado continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nuvelo, Inc.  Immediately
following the Merger, the Company changed its name from Nuvelo,
Inc. to ARCA biopharma, Inc.

In December 2006, after Nuvelo announced that alfimeprase did not
meet its primary endpoint in the first of two planned Phase 3
trials for the treatment of acute peripheral arterial occlusion
and in the first of two planned Phase 3 trials for the treatment
of catheter occlusion, the closing price of one share of Nuvelo's
common stock was $81 (as adjusted for the 20-to-1 reverse stock
split) on the day of the announcement, as compared with a closing
price of $391 (as adjusted for the 20-to-1 reverse stock split) on
the trading day prior to the announcement.  On February 9, 2007,
Nuvelo and certain of Nuvelo's former and then current officers
and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial
results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on December 11,
2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common
stock during the period between January 5, 2006 and December 8,
2006.  Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of
success.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive
relief.  Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern
District of New York on February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and
March 6, 2007, respectively.  In July 2007, the Court granted
Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of
California.  The cases were consolidated with the original
lawsuit, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the
Northern District of California on November 9, 2007.  Nuvelo filed
a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on
December 21, 2007.  On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on
the motion to dismiss.  On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an
order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and granting leave to
amend.  On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, alleging similar claims.  On March 24, 2009, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 15,
2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  On
August 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion.  The Company filed its answer to plaintiff's
complaint on October 1, 2009.

On December 29, 2010, the Company and the other defendants reached
a settlement of the litigation with the plaintiffs, after
participating in mediation before a retired federal judge.  On
February 25, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court for approval.
The Company's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the
settlement, subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier.  If
the Court approves the settlement, the litigation will be
dismissed against all the defendants.  Members of the class who
participate in the settlement will provide a release to the
defendants, which prevents them from ever asserting any related
claims against the defendants.  Members of the class, if any, who
opt out of the settlement, would not be bound by this release.

Although the Company's insurance carriers have agreed to pay most
of the legal fees that have been incurred in defending this
litigation, the Company has separately agreed with its legal
counsel to pay $167,000 in legal defense costs incurred on or
before December 29, 2010, but only if the Company obtain
additional funding of at least $10 million in 2011.  If the
Company does not obtain such additional funding in 2011, it will
have no such payment obligation.

ARCA biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company whose principal
focus is developing genetically-targeted therapies for heart
failure and other cardiovascular diseases.


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Variagenics-Related Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., disclosed in its March 9, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, that a securities class
action lawsuit related to Variagenics and Nuvelo remains pending.

In January 2009, ARCA Colorado merged with and into a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nuvelo, Inc.  After the Merger, the Company changed
its name from Nuvelo, Inc. to ARCA biopharma, Inc.

Variagenics, with which Nuvelo merged in 2003, has been named as a
defendant in a securities class action lawsuit alleging the
failure to disclose additional and excessive commissions
purportedly solicited by and paid to underwriters who are also
named defendants in the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs in the suit allege
that underwriters took these commissions and in exchange allocated
shares of Variagenics' stock to their preferred customers through
alleged agreements with these preferred customers that tied the
allocation of initial public offering shares to agreements by the
customers to make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-
determined prices.  As a result of Nuvelo's merger with
Variagenics, the Company is obligated to continue to defend
against this litigation.  On April 1, 2009 the parties entered
into a settlement agreement and have filed a motion to approve the
settlement with the Court.  On October 5, 2009, the Court approved
the settlement agreement.  ARCA biopharma's share of the
settlement is approximately $385,000.  Although the settlement has
been approved, it has been appealed by members of the class.  The
Company believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or settlement
payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its insurance
provider.  However, it is possible that the Company could be
forced to incur material expenses in the litigation if the parties
cannot complete a settlement, and, in the event of an adverse
outcome, the Company's business could be harmed.

ARCA biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company whose principal
focus is developing genetically-targeted therapies for heart
failure and other cardiovascular diseases.


ASCENA RETAIL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting final court
approval of a settlement entered in a purported class action in
California arising from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 29, 2011.

On January 21, 2010, Tween Brands, Inc., was sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  This
purported class action alleges, among other things, that Tween
Brands violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly
paying its employees for overtime and missed rest breaks.  The
parties have agreed to a settlement of this wage and hour lawsuit
and the Company has accrued for this settlement.  The settlement
is subject to notice to the purported class members and final
court approval.


AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS: Faces Class Action Over Indonesia Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta Post reports that the lawyer for several workers
filing a class action lawsuit against two Australian newspapers
says the papers' reports about President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
were retaliating against Indonesia's recent plans to reduce meat
imports from Australia.

"Indonesia recently said it would reduce beef imports because we
are building up the local beef supply," Habiburokhman, said in
Jakarta on March 15, as quoted by tribunnews.com.

Australian newspapers The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on
Friday ran stories citing allegations of corrupt practices by
President Yudhoyono.  The reports are allegedly based on documents
obtained from WikiLeaks that were provided exclusively to the
newspapers.

"It is apparent that this is unfair reporting," Habiburokhman
said.

He added that as a nation Indonesia's reputation had been tainted
by the reports on President Yudhoyono.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autobytel Inc. continues to await an appellate court ruling on two
appeals lodged against a settlement reached in a consolidated
securities class action complaint in New York.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against Autoweb.com, Inc., certain of Autoweb's former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.  Autoweb is among Autobytel's registered
service marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

With respect to the related class action lawsuits, a Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.  That 2002 case is
now the operative complaint.  The action purports to allege
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined
prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's
and Autoweb's initial public offering was false and misleading in
violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the
parties in the Autobytel case and the Autoweb case, reached a
settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in the
coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including Autobytel and Autoweb.  On October 6, 2009,
the Court granted final approval of the settlement.  Two appeals
by objectors to the settlement are proceeding before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs have
moved to dismiss both appeals.

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

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  If
the settlement does not survive appeal, and Autobytel or Autoweb
is found liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autobytel's or Autoweb's insurance coverage, and the impact on
Autobytel's financial statements could be material.

Autobytel is an automotive marketing services company that assists
automotive retail dealers and automotive manufacturers market and
sell new and used vehicles through the Company's internet purchase
request referral programs, together with related Dealer marketing
products and services, and online advertising programs.


AXA EQUITABLE: Awaits Final Approval of "Eagan" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. is awaiting final court approval,
after it obtained preliminary court approval, of an agreement to
settle a putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company
by retiree health plan participants, according to the Company's
March 10, 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 entitled Eagan et al. v. AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company was filed in the District Court for the
Central District of California in December 2006 against AXA
Equitable as plan sponsor and fiduciary for an ERISA retiree
health plan.  The action was brought by two plan participants on
behalf of all past and present employees and agents who received
retiree medical benefits from AXA Equitable at any time after
January 1, 2004, or who will receive such benefits in 2006 or
later, excluding certain retired agents.  Plaintiffs allege that
AXA Equitable's adoption of a revised version of its retiree
health plan in 1993 was not authorized or effective.  Plaintiffs
contend that AXA Equitable has therefore breached the retiree
health plan by imposing the terms of the 1993 Plan on plaintiffs
and other retirees.  Plaintiffs allege that, even if the 1993 Plan
is controlling, AXA Equitable has violated the terms of the
retiree health plan by imposing health care costs and coverages on
plaintiffs and other retirees that are not authorized under the
1993 Plan.  Plaintiffs also allege that AXA Equitable breached
fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and retirees by allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose information to them.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution and injunctive
relief prohibiting AXA Equitable from violating the terms of the
applicable plan, together with interest and attorneys' fees.  In
December 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement between the parties and notices were sent to the class
members.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Widespread Fraud in Connection with HAMP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Lyons and Jerry Lyons, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, NA, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01232 (N.D. Calif. March 14, 2011), accuse BOA of "engaging
in a course of widespread fraudulent and unconscionable conduct
with respect to borrowers in connection with loan modification
applications" under the Department of Treasury's Home Affordable
Modification Program ("HAMP"), which provides guidelines for
mortgage servicers to adopt to modify loans for homeowners in
financial need.  The Plaintiffs sought BOA's assistance through
the loan modification program.  BOA insisted that they fall behind
on payments so they can qualify for a HAMP loan modification.  But
before they had the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the
program, plaintiffs relate that BOA raised their mortgage payments
well above their pre-modification levels and foreclosed on their
home.

Plaintiffs allege that BOA incorrectly deemed Plaintiffs in
default and initiated foreclosure proceedings against them before
their first monthly payment was due under the modification
program.  Those proceedings are pending.

Plaintiffs Gina Lyons and Jerry Lyons are husband and wife,
residing in Santa Cruz, California.  Defendant Bank of America is
a Delaware corporation headquartered at 100 North Tryon Street, in
Charlotte, N.C., with offices in California.  BOA originates and
services residential mortgages throughout the United States.  BOA
is the nation's largest mortgage servicer with over 14 million
loans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 982-1776
          E-mail: MMcShane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
                  awarren@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          David I. Greenberger, Esq.
          Matthew J. McDonald, Esq.
          LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-8500
          E-mail: dgreenberger@liddlerobinson.com
                  mmcdonald@liddlerobinson.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Friscia, Esq.
          FRISCIA & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          17 Academy Street, Penthouse Suite
          Newark, N.J. 07102
          Telephone: (973) 500-8024
          E-mail: contact@friscialaw.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court approval of an agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit filed in New York remain pending, according to
Barnes & Noble Inc.'s March 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2011.

The class action lawsuit In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in April 2002 named over 1,000
individuals and 300 corporations, including Fatbrain.com, LLC, a
former subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.com (Fatbrain), and its former
officers and directors. The amended complaints in the Action all
allege that the initial public offering registration statements
filed by the defendant issuers with the SEC, including the one
filed by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed
to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess
compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its
customers and that some of those customers agreed to buy
additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the
aftermarket at increasing prices. The amended complaints also
allege that the foregoing constitute violations of: (i) Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act), by the
defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing the related
registration statements, and the related underwriters; (ii) Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (Exchange Act), by the same parties; and (iii) the control
person provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act by
certain directors and officers of the defendant issuers. A motion
to dismiss by the defendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was
denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs
and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving the
claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.
Subsequently a settlement agreement was executed between the
defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are
consistent with the MOU. The settlement agreement was submitted to
the court for approval and on February 15, 2005, the judge granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the federal appeals court for the Second
Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's class
certification decision in six focus cases. In light of that
decision, the District Court stayed all proceedings, including
consideration of the settlement. Plaintiffs then filed, in January
2007, a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Second Circuit,
which was denied in April 2007. On May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved,
before the District Court, to certify a new class. On June 25,
2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the
settlement agreement. On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs agreed to
withdraw the class certification motion. On October 10, 2008, the
District Court signed an order granting the request.

A settlement agreement in principle, subject to court approval,
was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,
insurers and underwriters and executed by Barnes & Noble. Final
court approval of the settlement was granted on October 5, 2009.
The District Court has finished entering the judgments approving
the settlement in all of the IPO cases, with the last judgment
entered on January 22, 2010. Pursuant to the settlement, no
settlement payment will be made by the Company. Since that time,
various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on
an interlocutory basis. Should any of these appeals be successful
and the approval of the settlement overturned, the Company intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


BARNES & NOBLE: Mediation Session Set for April 11
--------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California has scheduled a
mediation session for April 11, 2011, in connection with a
purported class action complaint against B&N Booksellers Inc.,
according to Barnes & Noble Inc.'s March 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2011.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State
of California alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that
did not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code,
allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and
calling for imposition of statutory penalties. The complaint also
alleges a violation of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and seeks restitution of such allegedly
unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an
injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class. On June 3, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer
denying all claims. Discovery concerning purported class member
payroll checks and related information is ongoing. On August 19,
2010, B&N Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack
of a class representative when the name plaintiff advised she did
not wish to continue to serve in that role. On October 15, 2010,
the Court issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to
dismiss. The Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve as
a class representative. The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery seeking
contact information for the putative class. B&N Booksellers
provided that information on October 15, 2010. The previously
scheduled Case Management Conference has been continued to
January 27, 2011. Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint
on January 26, 2011, adding two new named Plaintiffs, Jacob Allum
and Cesar Caminiero. At the Case Management Conference held on
January 27, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to complete
mediation by May 6, 2011. The parties have agreed upon a mediator,
and an all-day mediation session is scheduled for April 11, 2011.
At the Case Management Conference, the Court also ordered that, if
the matter is not resolved beforehand, the parties must file
either a class certification motion or a motion for summary
judgment/adjudication (as the parties choose) so that at least one
such motion is heard no later than September 2011. The Court will
not hear overlapping dispositive motions. The Court set a further
Case Management Conference date of June 15, 2011.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Funding of Settlement in Calif. Suit Commences
----------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of funding a settlement in connection with a
class action complaint filed in Los Angeles County, California, by
a former employee of BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has commenced,
according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 28, 2010.

On February 5, 2004, a former team member of the Company, on
behalf of herself and allegedly other team members, filed a class
action complaint in Los Angeles County, California, Superior
Court, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended complaint alleging
causes of action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum
pay; (2) failure to allow meal breaks; (3) failure to allow rest
breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) civil penalties; (6)
reimbursement for fraud and deceit; (7) punitive damages for fraud
and deceit; and, (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.  On June 28,
2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second, third,
fourth and fifth causes of action.  During September 2004, the
plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration of the action.  On
March 2, 2008, and again on March 19, 2008, one of plaintiff's
attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records
and to pay plaintiff minimum wage.  To the Company's knowledge,
the Agency has not responded to either of these notices.

In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject
to final approval from the arbitrator and confirmation from the
court.  The arbitrator approved the settlement and the arbitration
in September 2010.  The arbitrator signed a judgment that
dismissed the arbitration in October 2010.  The judgment was
processed for final court confirmation and confirmed by the court,
with a Notice of Entry entered in December 2010.  The 60-day
period for appealing the Court Order expired in February 2011 and,
as a result, the administration of funding the settlement has
commenced.  The Company says the terms of this proposed settlement
are not considered to be material to its consolidated financial
position.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Time to Appeal Settlement Order to Expire May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The 60-day period for appealing an order approving the settlement
in a lawsuit filed against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., in Orange
County, California, will expire on May 1, 2011, according to the
Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, a team member of BJ's Restaurants, Inc., filed a
class action complaint in Orange County, California, Superior
Court on behalf of himself and allegedly other team members.  The
complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay plaintiff
and other alleged class members regular wages and overtime pay,
failure to maintain the designated wage scale and secret payment
of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and restitution of
wages and injunction for violation of California Business and
Professions Code.  The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On October 1, 2010, the court preliminarily approved a proposed
settlement of this action as requested by the parties and set a
final approval hearing for February 18, 2011.  The 60-day period
for appealing the Court Order and Judgment will expire on or about
May 1, 2011.  The Company says the terms of this proposed
settlement are not considered to be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Is Ongoing in Fresno Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed by a team
member of BJ's Restaurants, Inc., in Fresno County, California,
according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 28, 2010.

On February 4, 2009, a team member, on behalf of himself and
allegedly other team members filed a class action complaint in
Fresno County, California, Superior Court, which complaint was
served on the Company in the second quarter of 2009.  The
complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages for
on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code and for penalties for unpaid wages.  The
complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.  On August 14,
2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other team
members joined the action as plaintiffs.  An answer to the
operative complaint, denying the allegations, has been filed and
the Company is in the process of continuing discovery.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend its position in
this action.


BOB EVANS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Mimi's Cafe Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc., is still awaiting final court approval of
its settlement with plaintiffs of a lawsuit against SWH
Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe, March 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 28, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, a class action complaint entitled Edder Diaz
and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe was
filed in Alameda County California Superior Court. In a March 2010
amended complaint, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent a
class of servers, bartenders, front-of-house trainers, to-go
servers, shift managers, or shift manager expeditors, who are
allegedly similarly situated. In a second amended complaint filed
in October 2010, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray allege that current and
former nonexempt employees working in these positions in
California from July 26, 2006, to August 31, 2010 (1) were not
reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with the
discharge of their duties, (2) were denied rest breaks and meal
periods as required for nonexempt employees under California wage
and hour laws, (3) were not paid minimum wage and overtime for
time spent working off-the-clock during, or in connection with, a
meal period, and (4) were required to pay for cash shortages. The
second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the Company believes that Mimi's Cafe has complied with
the California wage and hour laws at issue in the Diaz lawsuit, it
elected to resolve the lawsuit voluntarily. In October 2010, the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Diaz
class representatives and their legal counsel to settle the
lawsuit for $340,000, inclusive of payments to class members,
enhancements to the class representatives, costs of
administration, and plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs related to
the lawsuit. The Alameda County California Superior Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on December 8, 2010. The
Company is in the process of contacting the class members and
administering their claims.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- owns and
operates full-service restaurants under the Bob Evans and Mimi's
Cafe brand names.  At the end of the first fiscal quarter
(July 30, 2010), Bob Evans owned and operated 569 family
restaurants in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic
and Southeast regions of the United States, while Mimi's Cafe
owned and operated 145 casual restaurants located in 24 states,
primarily in California and other western states.  Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., is also a leading producer and distributor of pork
sausage and a variety of complementary homestyle convenience food
items under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.


BUSINESS FIN'L SERVICES: Accused of Violating Calif. Usury Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims three businesses not authorized to make loans in California
dodged the law, and charged as much as 90 percent interest, by
calling its loans "merchant cash advances . . . secured by future
credit card sales."

Borrowers sued Business Financial Services, a North Carolina
corporation, and two Florida-based finance companies, Business
Cash Advance and Faton Inc.  They seek class damages for usury,
money had and received and unfair trade practices.

A quick fix to cash-flow problems, a merchant cash advance is a
business equivalent of a payday loan.  Cash-strapped businesses
borrow money, agreeing to pay back the principal plus a fee, which
often comes to more than 25 percent of the amount advanced.  This
type of short-term lending, also called receivables financing,
allows businesses to gradually pay back the debt from future
credit card sales.

The class claims that the defendants, who were not licensed
lenders in California, made illegal loans, charging effective
annual interest rates of 70% to 90% -- more than permitted by
California law.

The class challenges the defendants' claim that "the merchant cash
advances they made to plaintiffs and other California borrowers
are not subject to California's usury law because they are sales
of future receivables instead of loans."

The class says that the defendants' claim that they are in the
business of buying receivables, not making loans, is an attempt to
dodge state usury laws, which regulate interest rates on non-
consumer loans.

Several factors qualify the defendants' cash advances as loans,
including that borrowers had to submit credit applications,
financing statements and personal guarantees, the complaint
states.

Moreover, the defendants have the option to accelerate a
borrower's payments in case of default, and "unlike a sale, which
is consummated when the money is paid and the property is
delivered, the merchant cash advance is not complete until the
money advanced by the defendants is repaid in full," the complaint
states.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an order
canceling the debt owed to the defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in Captain Bounce, Inc., et al. v.
Business Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2011-
00052329 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/15/SDCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Daniel Holsenback, Esq.
          HOLSENBACK APC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: (619) 269-4634
          E-mail: dan@holsenbackapc.com


CALIFORNIA: Franchise Tax Board Sued Over Braille Inavailability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court claims the Franchise Tax Board does not
provide blind or purblind people with information in Braille or
large print.


CENTER FOR ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE: Lawyers Sued Over Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that two attorneys
claim their co-counsel in two class actions that won insurance
benefits for victims of the Armenian genocide diverted and
laundered almost $1 million from settlements meant for charities
to help the Armenian community.  "It is with deep sadness that
plaintiffs bring this action," Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck say
in their Superior Court complaint.

They sued Vartkes Yeghiayan, Rita Mahdessian, the Center for
Armenian Remembrance aka Conservatoire de la Memoire Armenienne,
and Yeghiyian Law Corp.

Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck claim that Mr. Yeghiayan "created a
sham charity as a means by which he could funnel monies for his
own personal charity -- himself."

Mr. Yeghiayan created the Center for Armenian Remembrance in 2005,
after a settlement with the New York Life Insurance Company, "to
defraud class members, the court and the Armenian community,"
according to the complaint.

Under the New York Life settlement, the class counsel - which
included Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck -- were to pick "charity
organizations who would receive a total of $3 million in
settlement proceeds for work solely to advance the interests of
the Armenian community, relieve the needy, and provide direct
assistance to orphans, the elderly, disabled, widows and the
impoverished," the complaint states.

Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck claim Mr. Yeghiayan hid his
relationship with the Center for Armenian Remembrance and claimed
that the charity "focused on preserving Armenian history and
recognition of the Armenian genocide," so that he could
misappropriate charitable funds and launder them.

Because of Mr. Yeghiayan's deception, the "sham charity" was
"designated recipient of cy pres charity funds" and received
$200,000 from the New York Life Unclaimed Benefits Fund, according
to the complaint.

Mr. Yeghiayan also was co-counsel with the plaintiffs in the
Kyurkjian et al. v Axa, S.A. class action, according to the
complaint.  For this one, Mr. Yeghiayan invented the
"Conservatoire de la Memoire Armenienne" as a beneficiary of
settlement proceeds the complaint states.

But Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck say: "Strikingly, no such entity
exists at the address listed in Paris, France; a simple Google
search reveals that CMA is actually linked to the same address as
Mr. Yeghiayan's law firm."

Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck say Mr. Yeghiayan also listed the
"Instituto Per Le Opere Di Religione Citta Del Vatican" to receive
$75,000 in settlement funds, but that "institution is merely the
Italian name of the Vatican Bank, located in Vatican City."  The
plaintiffs Mr. Yeghiayan "simply distributed these funds to a
private bank account under Yeghiayan's control so that he could
redistribute the laundered funds to himself."

Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck says Mr. Yeghiayan and Rita
Mahdessian served as co-counsel with them in both class actions,
"in order to recover insurance benefits that have remained unpaid
for nearly 100 years," and which "resulted in settlement
disbursements to hundreds of the rightful beneficiaries of the
policy holders who were among the 1.5 million Armenians who
perished and were unable to obtain their insurance proceeds in the
ensuing tragic genocide by Ottoman Turkey."

One million to 1.5 million Armenians were killed during the
genocide at the end of World War I, which Turkey continues to deny
ever happened, or calls the fortunes of war.

Messrs. Geragos and Kabateck seek punitive damages for fraud,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Kellner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN AND KELLNER LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-217-5000
          E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Eugene Harris, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          Engine Co. No. 28
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          E-mail: harris@geragos.com


CHEMTURA CORP: Bankruptcy Court OKs Settlement in 3 Georgia Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York has entered a final order approving Chemtura
Corporation's settlement agreement with respect to the three
putative class action lawsuits against it pending in the Superior
Court of Rockdale County, Georgia, according to the Company's
March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Three putative class action lawsuits pending in the Superior Court
of Rockdale County, Georgia, pertaining to the fire at the
Company's Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004, captioned
James and Carla Brown v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al., Don Chapman et al.
v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al. and Deborah Davis, et al. v. Bio-Lab,
Inc., et al., one putative federal class action lawsuit captioned
Bill Martin, et al. v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al. and several remaining
individual lawsuits, including the lawsuit captioned Billy R.
Brown, et al. v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al., pending in the Superior
Court of Rockdale County, Georgia, will be resolved under a Class
Action Settlement Agreement entered into on August 25, 2010.  The
Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement fund of $7 million
to be paid out to settlement class members on a claim-by-claim
basis pursuant to certain procedures and a distribution formula
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  Those persons who have
opted out of the settlement class and have filed a proof of claim
during the Chapter 11 cases may continue to pursue such claim in
the Bankruptcy Court.

The Company believes those persons who have opted out of the
Settlement Class and have not filed a proof of claim during the
Chapter 11 cases will be barred by the Plan and discharge
injunction from pursuing their claims against the Company.  By
order dated September 10, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the
Debtors' entry into the Class Action Settlement Agreement, and
preliminarily approved the class action settlement.  In January
2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final order approving the
Settlement Agreement as fair, adequate and reasonable.


CHEMTURA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Urethane Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement on a coordinated proceeding against Chemtura
Corporation relating to its sale of urethanes and urethane
chemicals has been given final approval, according to the
Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Chemtura Corporation is a defendant in certain indirect purchaser
antitrust class action lawsuits filed in state courts involving
the sale of urethanes and urethane chemicals, of which 13 state
complaints were pending at the time of filing the Chapter 11
cases.  On September 12, 2008, the Company received final court
approval of a settlement agreement covering one of these actions,
which had been removed to federal court.  In addition, on
December 23, 2008, the Company received preliminary court approval
of a settlement agreement covering the remaining 12 complaints,
all of which are pending in a coordinated proceeding in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  The settlement funds totaling $1 million were placed
into escrow pursuant to this agreement.  The settlement agreement
was assumed by the Company in connection with confirmation of the
Plan and the settlement funds have since been released from escrow
following the Company's emergence from Chapter 11.

Final approval of the settlement was granted on December 8, 2010.


CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2010, a Florida Public Utilities Company propane customer
filed a class action complaint against FPU in Palm Beach County,
Florida, alleging, among other things, that FPU acted in a
deceptive and unfair manner related to a particular charge by FPU
on its bills to propane customers and the description of such
charge.  The suit sought to certify a class comprised of FPU
propane customers to whom such charge was assessed since May 2006
and requested damages and statutory remedies based on the amounts
paid by FPU customers for such charge.  FPU vigorously denies any
wrongdoing and maintains that the particular charge at issue is
customary, proper and fair.

Without any admission by FPU of any wrongdoing, validity of the
claims or a properly certifiable class for the complaint, FPU
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff in
September 2010 to avoid the burden and expenses of continued
litigation.  The court approved the final settlement.  The
judgment becomes final when the time for appeal expired on
March 13, 2011.

As of March 8, 2011, no notice of appeal was filed, according to
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.


CHINA AGRITECH: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP disclosed on March 14, 2011, that all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of China Agritech, Inc. between Feb. 8, 2010 and
February 3, 2011, inclusive, have 29 days until the April 12, 2011
deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the
securities fraud class action lawsuit.  The case filed by Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Pepperdine v. China Agritech, Inc., et al.,
No. CV-11-01441-RGK, has been assigned to the Honorable R. Gary
Klausner, United States District Judge for the Central District of
California.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com

China Agritech, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
organic liquid compound fertilizers, organic granular compound
fertilizers, and related agricultural products in the People's
Republic of China.  The Complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that,
among other things: (1) certain of the Company's manufacturing
facilities were idle or producing far less fertilizer than the
Company portrayed; (2) the Company did not have the equipment to
support its claimed production capacity; (3) the Company did not
receive a license to manufacture granular compound fertilizer; (4)
the Company had misrepresented its fertilizer production levels
and sales; and (5), as a result, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Feb. 3, 2011, analyst firm Citron Research published a report
questioning China Agritech's financial statements and claimed
production capacity.  The report alleged that the Company has
misrepresented the scope of its operations and that its financial
statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission were
materially different than the financial statements the Company's
subsidiaries had filed with Chinese authorities.

As a result of this news, China Agritech shares declined $0.93 per
share, or 8.63%, to close on Feb. 3, 2011, at $9.85 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA")
requires the Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.
Any person or group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing
China Agritech securities between Feb. 8, 2010 and Feb. 3, 2011,
may ask the Court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file
a motion no later than the April 12, 2011 deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant
experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in
actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing China
Agritech shareholders in this litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
                    (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/


CIENA CORP: Appeals From Class Suit Settlement Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from final approval of an agreement to settle a securities
class action lawsuit against Ciena Corporation are still pending,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2011.

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in August 2001. The complaint named ONI, certain former ONI
officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's initial public
offering (IPO) as defendants, and alleges, among other things,
that the underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements in ONI's
registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices
to artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO. The
complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers
violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices. The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice. Similar complaints have been filed
against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public
offerings since 1998, and all of these actions have been included
in a single coordinated proceeding. On October 6, 2009, the Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to a settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants, and
directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions. Notices
of appeal of the opinion granting final approval have been filed.
No specific amount of damages has been claimed in this action. Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the
settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the
matter is uncertain.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: March 24 Hearing Set for PPO Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a dispute involving the settlement of a 2005 Madison County
class action against Cincinnati Insurance Company over Preferred
Provider Organization discounts will be heard March 24.

Circuit Judge William Mudge has been considering whether to order
payment to class member Illinois Bone and Joint Institute (IBJI)
of more than $500,000.

Cincinnati argues that the institute, one of a class of 32,000
health care providers led by chiropractor Frank Bemis that settled
with the insurer for $3.5 million, did not follow the proper claim
procedures.

Mr. Bemis led the class against Cincinnati alleging the insurance
company took PPO discounts on workers' compensation claims that it
was not entitled to.

The suit was one of a number of PPO class actions filed against
various insurance companies in the middle of last decade before
the Class Action Fairness Act went into effect.

Cincinnati and the Bemis class settled last year.

Mr. Bemis, as lead plaintiff, was awarded $5,000.

Attorney Robert Schmieder II and the rest of the plaintiff's team
were to receive more than $700,000 in fees.

The insurance company has paid out $57,000 of more than $485,000
that IBJI submitted in claims.

The company denied the rest alleging the institute did not submit
the supporting documents needed to pay the claims.

Judge Mudge heard arguments presented by Mr. Schmieder II and
Cincinnati counsel Omar Odland in December 2010 for and against
paying the claims.

Judge Mudge took the matter under advisement.

The parties also submitted additional briefings and documents for
Judge Mudge's review.

The notice of the March 24 hearing was filed March 11.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


CIT GROUP: Shareholder Suit Remains Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
CIT Group Inc.'s pre-reorganization stockholders remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization
stockholders against CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO. In
August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New
York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against
CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller and certain
members of its current and former Board of Directors. In May 2009,
the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a
single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as
Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of
all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from
December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were
damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant
to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, it is alleged
that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller,
and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The
allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are
based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose
the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans.
The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business
are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in
its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred
stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for
private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school,
which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the
Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and
those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the
registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ
preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending
business.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities action.  On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the
remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The action continues as to the remaining defendants and
CIT's obligation to defend and indemnify those defendants
continues.  The case is in the discovery stage. Plaintiffs seek,
among other relief, unspecified damages and interest.

Founded in 1908, CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT) -- http://www.cit.com/
-- is a bank holding company with more than $35 billion in finance
and leasing assets. It provides financing and leasing capital to
its more than one million small business and middle market clients
and their customers across more than 30 industries.


CITY HOLDING: Unit Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------
City National Bank of West Virginia is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a class action alleging violations of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, according to City
Holding Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In 2010, City National Bank of West Virginia was named as a
defendant in a putative class action alleging that the manner in
which City National assessed overdraft fees to its consumer
checking accounts violates the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, breached an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and creates an unjust enrichment to City National.
The amount claimed by the plaintiffs has not been determined, but
could be material.  On October 8, 2010, City National filed a
Motion to Dismiss, which was heard on December 13, 2010.  Proposed
orders were submitted to the Circuit Court on December 30, 2010,
but no ruling has been made.


CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces "Weitzner" Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Dr. Ari Weitzner in Massachusetts,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the
Company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys
fees. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up
to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500
per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on
discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately
three million facsimiles were sent on the Company's behalf by a
third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. On February 6,
2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff
served a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed
on numerous factual and legal grounds, including that a nationwide
class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court
by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; individual issues
predominate over common issues; a class action is not superior to
other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an
inadequate class representative. The Company also believes it has
many merits defenses, including that the faxes in question do not
constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many
recipients had an established business relationship with the
Company and are thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of
facsimile communications. The Court held a hearing on the
plaintiff's class certification motion in June 2008, but no
decision on the motion has been rendered. In July 2010, the Court
issued an order dismissing this matter without prejudice for Dr.
Weitzner's failure to prosecute the case in August 2010, Dr.
Weitzner filed a motion for relief from the dismissal order, which
the Court allowed. At a status conference held in November 2010,
the Court confirmed that the class certification motion was still
under advisement. The Company is not currently able to estimate
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome of this lawsuit.

In July 2008, the Company commenced a declaratory judgment action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
requesting a declaration that Dr. Weitzner's and the putative
class claims are covered under its general liability insurance
policies. In August 2008, Cynosure's insurance company filed an
Answer and Counterclaim against it seeking a declaration that
Cynosure's policy does not provide coverage for Dr. Weitzner's
claims. In August 2008, Cynosure filed a reply to the
Counterclaim. The insurance company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment in December 2008, and Cynosure cross moved for Summary
Judgment in January 2009. The Court held a hearing on the motions
in February 2009, and in April 2009 rendered a decision that
Cynosure's liability insurer is obligated to provide the Company
with a defense to the Weitzner action and, if necessary, indemnify
the Company for the putative class claims. Thereafter, the
liability insurer filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Company opposed. The court denied the insurer's motion in May
2009. In January 2010, the court entered an Order for Judgment
consistent with its April 8, 2009 decision that the insurer is
obligated to defend the Company against the putative class claims
and to indemnify it for any single damages, attorneys' fees or
costs. Per agreement of the parties, the Company was awarded $0.4
million in fees and costs for the period through July 1, 2009. The
insurer filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment in January 2010.
The matter has been fully briefed and the U.S. First Circuit Court
of Appeals heard oral arguments in January 2011.


DOT HILL: Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissed in 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
In late January and early February 2006, numerous purported class
action complaints were filed against Dot Hill Systems Corp. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The complaints allege violations of federal
securities laws related to alleged inflation in the Company's
stock price in connection with various statements and alleged
omissions to the public and to the securities markets and declines
in the Company's stock price in connection with the restatement of
certain of its quarterly financial statements for fiscal year
2004, and seeking damages therefore.  The complaints were
consolidated into a single action, and the Court appointed as lead
plaintiff a group comprised of the Detroit Police and Fire
Retirement System and the General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit.  The consolidated complaint was filed on August 25, 2006,
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2006.  The
Court granted the motion to dismiss on March 15, 2007.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
April 20, 2007.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on May 1, 2008, which the Court
granted on September 2, 2008.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
Third Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 10, 2008, and on
November 24, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
March 18, 2009, the Court dismissed the Third Amended Consolidated
Complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend one more time.
On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding
the Court's September 2, 2008 and March 18, 2009 orders.  On
May 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment and dismissed the
action with prejudice.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an
Amended Notice of Appeal on June 8, 2009.  On October 29, 2009,
the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Appeal.  On
October 30, 2009, the appeal was dismissed.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Deadline to Appeal Tenn. Suit Dismissal Expires
----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit in Tennessee has expired, according to Dynegy
Holdings Inc.'s March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In February 2007, the Tennessee state court dismissed a class
action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed and, in October
2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal.  Thereafter,
defendants appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court which, in April
2010, reversed the appellate court ruling and dismissed all of
plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs' deadline to appeal to the United
States Supreme Court has expired.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Adjudication of Claims in Colo. Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. is awaiting adjudication of the remaining
defendants' claims in a Colorado class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In February 2008, the United States District Court in Las Vegas,
Nevada, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in a
Colorado class action and, ultimately, dismissed the case and all
of plaintiffs' claims.  The decision is subject to appeal once the
remaining defendants' claims are adjudicated.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Blackstone Merger Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits arising from its botched proposed merger with an
affiliate of The Blackstone Group L.P., according to the Company's
March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In connection with the transactions contemplated by the Company's
merger agreement with an affiliate of The Blackstone Group L.P.,
19 stockholder lawsuits were filed (one of which was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed) in the District Courts of Harris County,
Texas, between August 13, 2010, and August 24, 2010, against
Dynegy, its directors, certain Blackstone entities, NRG Energy
Inc., and/or certain executive officers of Dynegy.  The remaining
18 Texas state actions were consolidated on September 9, 2010, and
are captioned as Colleen Witmer, et al. v. Dynegy Inc., et al.,
No. 2010-50609 (Consolidated) (234th Judicial District of Harris
County, Texas).  One stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in a
District Court in Harris County, Texas on September 16, 2010.
Three stockholder lawsuits were filed against the Company, its
directors, certain of its executive officers, certain Blackstone
entities, and/or NRG in the United States District Court in the
Southern District of Texas; the first was filed on August 31,
2010; the second was filed on September 16, 2010, and the third
was filed on October 7, 2010.  Six similar stockholder actions
against Dynegy, its directors, certain Blackstone entities, and/or
certain executive officers of Dynegy were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware between August 17, 2010, and
August 23, 2010, and were consolidated on August 24, 2010.  One of
these lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed on August 23, 2010.

The complaints arising out of the Blackstone Merger Agreement
variously alleged, among other things, that the board and certain
executive officers violated fiduciary duties and failed to
disclose material information.  Certain of the complaints also
alleged that Dynegy, Blackstone, and/or NRG aided and abetted such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs sought
various remedies, including an injunction against the merger
and/or the stockholder vote, corrective disclosure, declaratory
relief with respect to the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and
monetary damages including attorneys' fees and expenses.

On November 7, 2010, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the full and final settlement of the
Texas state stockholder class actions and the Delaware actions. In
connection with the settlement, Dynegy denied all allegations of
wrongdoing but agreed to make certain additional disclosures to
stockholders.  On November 8, 2010, Dynegy made supplemental
disclosures in a supplement to the Definitive Proxy Statement
filed with the SEC as Definitive Additional Materials on Schedule
14A on November 8, 2010 and subsequently mailed such supplemental
disclosures to the holders of the Company's common stock.  The
memorandum of understanding and settlement were expressly subject
to and conditioned upon the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Blackstone Merger Agreement.  Accordingly,
when the Blackstone Merger Agreement was terminated, the
settlement became null and void.

On December 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the stockholder derivative
action moved to nonsuit all defendants without prejudice.  The
court granted the motion on December 14, 2010.  On December 16,
2010, the lead plaintiff in the Texas state class action moved to
nonsuit without prejudice defendants Blackstone and NRG.  The
court granted the motion on December 17, 2010.  On February 25,
2011, the plaintiffs in the federal cases moved to dismiss their
claims without prejudice.  The court dismissed the federal
lawsuits on March 1, 2011.

In addition to the state class action, the Delaware actions also
remain pending.  The defendants believe that the Delaware actions,
which currently arise out of the Blackstone Merger Agreement, are
meritless, and in any event, are moot in light of the fact that
the transaction was not consummated.  The defendants will continue
to vigorously defend against all related claims.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Icahn Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
arising from its merger with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises
L.P., according to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On January 6, 2011, the plaintiff in a Texas state class action,
which filed a lawsuit in connection with the failed proposed
merger of the Company with an affiliate of The Blackstone Group
L.P., filed a second amended petition challenging Dynegy's entry
into a merger agreement with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises
L.P.  The second amended petition names Dynegy, its board members,
and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. as defendants and generally
alleges that the Dynegy board members breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with approving the transaction and by
providing misleading information and/or failing to disclose
information in the 14D-9 filing.  The second amended petition also
alleges that Dynegy and Icahn aided and abetted the Dynegy board
members' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that all
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive stockholders of the
full value of their shares.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the tender solicitation.

On February 4, 2011, a new federal class action complaint was
filed against Dynegy, its directors, and certain Icahn entities
generally alleging claims similar to those alleged in the state
court second amended petition.  Shortly after filing, this case
was consolidated with the other federal cases and subsequently
dismissed on March 1, 2011.  The defendants believe that the
claims in the second amended petition are meritless and intend to
vigorously defend against such claims.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Judgment Proceedings in Haifa Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. disclosed that judgment execution
proceedings against plaintiffs in a purported class action in
Haifa, Israel in connection with expenses that have been awarded
to the Company remain pending, according to the Company's
March 10, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 1999, a claim against Elscint Ltd., an associate of
the Company, Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd., the parent company of
Elscint, and various other defendants, including the Company and
certain of its former officers, was filed in the Haifa District
Court together with a request to approve certain causes of action
set out in the claim, as a class action on behalf of some
institutional investors and others who held shares in Elscint on
September 6, 1999 and a request for certain causes of action to be
treated as a derivative action.  The allegations raised in the
claim relate, among others, to the period prior to the sale of the
Company's holdings in Elbit Imaging Ltd. (formerly known as Elbit
Medical Imaging Ltd.), or EI (the parent company of Elscint and
formerly an associate company).  The plaintiffs sought a court
order pursuant to which EI would be compelled to effect a tender
offer.  In August 2000, the Haifa District Court decided to strike
out the application for approval of the claim as a class action.
Subsequent to that decision the plaintiffs submitted an amended
statement of claim which is similar to the initial claim but is
designated as a personal claim and partly as a derivative action
rather than as a purported class action.  In addition, some of the
plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court in Israel against the
District Court's decision.  In December 2006, the Supreme Court
reversed that decision and returned the matter back to the Haifa
District Court in order to decide whether the claim should be
recognized as a class action.  In June 2007, in accordance with
the directions of the Haifa District Court, the plaintiffs
submitted an updated statement of claim and request to approve the
claim as a class action.  Pursuant to the updated claim, the
plaintiffs are no longer seeking an order compelling the tender
offer but instead are claiming compensation for damages sustained
due to the alleged failure of EI to effect the tender offer, as
well as due to other allegations.  The updated statement of claim
does not specify the monetary amount claimed, but does include
various allegations relating to the manner of determining the
damages claimed, which depends, amongst other things, upon
verification of the specific circumstances with regard to each
shareholder of Elscint separately and the substance of each damage
claimed.  In January 2009, the Haifa District Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' request to approve the claim as a class action.  In
March 2009, the plaintiffs appealed against the Haifa District
Court's decision.  The hearing on the appeal took place in
December 2010 and the Company is awaiting the Supreme Court's
decision.  At this stage, the personal claims of the plaintiffs
for monetary damages and their request to treat certain part of
them as a derivative action remain pending.  The Company has
instituted judgment execution proceedings against the plaintiffs
in connection with the expenses awarded to it up to the present
time in the class action.

The Company denies all the allegations of these claims, and based
on legal advice received, management is of the opinion that it has
good defense arguments, which, more likely than not, will cause
dismissal of the claims.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Two Class Claims in Haifa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and its co-defendants do not yet
have to file statements of defense in purported class actions
filed in a Haifa court, according to the Company's March 10, 2011
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

During September 2006, two claims were filed by a certain
individual in the Haifa District Court in Israel against the
Company and certain of its former officers of the action filed in
November 1999 against Elscint Ltd., et al., and based
substantially on the same facts of the action against Elscint.
The claims are for an undisclosed amount and also include a
request to recognize the claims as class actions.  The Court has
determined that the defendants do not yet have to file statements
of defense.

The Company denies all the allegations of these claims, and based
on legal advice received, management is of the opinion that it has
good defense arguments, which, more likely than not, will cause
dismissal of the claims.


FAMILY VIDEO: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gruenwedel, writing for Home Media Magazine, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Family Video alleging
the largest privately-owned video rental chain in the country with
more than 6,500 employees forced staff to work "off the clock"
without getting paid for standard and overtime hours.

The suit, filed March 14 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, claims
former employee Darvette Smith was not fairly compensated for
standard and overtime hours worked at three Family Video store
locations in Des Moines, Iowa, from November 2008 to January 2011.

The suit claims Glenview, Ill.-based Family Video with 730 stores
in 19 states violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
in an effort to strictly manage its labor costs.  Unpaid work
included assisting customers, opening stores, maintenance, making
required phone calls, completing inventory-related tasks, stocking
shelves, and closing down stores, which required balancing cash
registers and making off-site bank deposits.

"The law requires that employees be paid for all the work they do.
Unpaid work each day adds up quickly and can make a big difference
in employees' paychecks, particularly in these tough economic
times," said Matthew George, an attorney with San Francisco-based
Girard Gibbs LLP, which filed the suit with Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP in Chicago.

Mr. George said the unpaid compensation includes hours worked
below Family Video's mandated limit of 40 hours worked per week.
He said "off the clock" litigation is typically standard between
retail establishments.

"We get quite a few complaints that this [occurs] in this
economy," Mr. George said.  "Obviously, employers are trying to
cut down on labor expenses, which sometimes can result in these
types of practices."

The complaint, which requests a jury trial, seeks unspecified
compensatory and liquid damages, in addition to legal fees.  Due
to the case being filed as a collective action, registered
plaintiffs could receive double their unpaid wages and overtime.

A Family Video representative was not immediately available for
comment.

Last December, Family Video said it had opened 125 stores since
July, employing 1,000 new staffers during that time period.  In
addition to touting street date availability of new releases,
Family Video pledged to charge no more than $2.80 for a new title
rented for five days.

"We have never deviated from our model of high service and low-
cost entertainment while being an integral part of every
community," Keith Hoogland, president of Family Video, said in a
statement at the time.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over "Upweighting" Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class
action claims that FedEx overcharges customers by "upweighting
. . . a labyrinthine and corrupt billing model" that brings FedEx
"many millions if not billions in dollars in overcharges" from the
3.5 million packages FedEx ships each day.

Lead plaintiff NYBikerGear claims FedEx cheats customers in three
ways: through "upweighting;" through a "Canadian Customs scam;"
and by failing to apply discounts properly.

"In the 'upweighting' scam, the defendants have manipulated their
information technology so that it rates small packages at a
fictional higher weight than the actual package weight," according
to the 33-page federal complaint.  "The higher weight, in turn,
automatically results in the assessment of higher rates and
surcharges for these packages."

In the "Canadian Customs scam," the complaint states, "the
defendants have billed their customers for Canadian Customs duties
and related charges on FedEx Ground shipments from the United
States to Canada.  The defendants knew such charges were to be
paid by the Canadian recipients but instead misrepresented to
customers that such charges could not be collected from the
recipients."

NYBikerGear claims that FedEx invoices "set forth the improper
Canadian Customs duties, taxes and related charges payable in
connection with FedEx Ground shipping services" and claim,
falsely, that "all amounts due on these invoices were lawful and
appropriate charges."

Finally, the class claims, FedEx "also issued invoices that failed
to apply applicable discounts to FedEx Ground shipments billed to
the FedEx billing numbers of its customers."

The class claims that FedEx does not abide by its pricing
agreements, which give customers discounts when they ship packages
with a FedEx billing number.

The class seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, costs and
treble damages for RICO fraud.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Paleudis, ESq.
          THE PALEUDIS LAW FIRM
          11 Oscawana Lake Road
          P.O. Box 67
          Putnam Valley, NY 10579
          Telephone: (845) 603-6390
          E-mail: mpaleudis@paleudislaw.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Judge Ends Class Action Over Later Deliveries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a 10 year-old Madison County class action against Federal
Express over alleged late deliveries is over.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge granted summary
judgment for FedEx March 10 in a case in which the lead plaintiff
Stephen Fleisher could not show that he had received a late
delivery.

Judge Mudge signed an order March 10 finding that FedEx's "money-
back guarantee" is clear and that it was the exclusive remedy for
late deliveries.

Since the case was filed, the suit has seen rulings that
Mr. Fleisher's allegations were without merit and arguments that a
class action complaint served as notice to the company that
plaintiff had received a late delivery.

Mr. Fleisher had claimed that FedEx delivered packages later than
it advertised as part of its expedited service.

Mr. Fleisher and co-lead plaintiff Inland Marketing Services were
represented by Mark Goldenberg of Edwardsville.

Robert Shultz of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville represented FedEx.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had argued that Fed Ex data showed
nearly 10,000 late shipments in Madison County and nearly 18
million nationwide.

Mr. Fleisher sought damages for the difference in what he claimed
the service was.

It was later determined, however, that Mr. Fleisher could not
identify any late deliveries of his own.

Mr. Fleisher amended his complaint in 2003 adding Inland Marketing
as the FedEx account holder.

Discovery ultimately uncovered one late delivery for which Inland
sought damages.

In July 2010 FedEx moved for summary judgment.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, who then helmed the
case, heard oral arguments on the move in October of last year
before entering an order a month later on Nov. 19, 2010.

In that order, Judge Stack dismissed Mr. Fleisher's claims with
prejudice.

He denied the rest of the summary judgment move while allowing
Inland Marketing to argue liability for the single late delivery.

FedEx then filed a motion asking Judge Mudge to reconsider.

In his six-page order, Judge Mudge found that the parties agreed
to a contract where the remedy for a late delivery was limited to
a money-back guarantee.

Written notice of the late delivery was to be sent to FedEx within
30 days of the occurrence.

The judge also found that Inland did not provide the required
notice to get its money back because it did nothing more than file
a lawsuit.

"There is no dispute that the complaint was filed long after the
30 day notice period," the order reads.  "The Court finds the
language of the contract to be clear and unambiguous and provides
that a money-back guarantee was Plaintiff's exclusive remedy if
FedEx breached its contract."

Judge Mudge took over case last year after several dockets shifted
due to Stack's retirement.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder also presided over
the case.

The case is Madison case number 01-L-1507.


FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Final Judgment in Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final judgment in a securities class action
lawsuit against Finisar Corporation remains pending, according to
the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 30, 2011.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from November 17, 1999, through December 6,
2000.  The complaint named as defendants the Company, Jerry S.
Rawls, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Frank H.
Levinson, its former Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical
Officer, Stephen K. Workman, its former Senior Vice President,
Corporate Development and Investor Relations and its former Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and an investment
banking firm that served as an underwriter for the Company's
initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering
in April 2000.  The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose,
among other things, that (i) the underwriter had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock
sold in the offerings and (ii) the underwriter had entered into
agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to
allocate shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in the after
market at pre-determined prices.  No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October
2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding
the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal
documentation and Court approval.  Under the settlement, the
underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the
issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100
million to settle all of the cases.  On August 25, 2009, the
Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata
share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain
costs.  This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2010.  On
October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and
on November 19, 2009 the Court entered final judgment.  The
judgment has been appealed by certain individual class members.

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


FINISAR CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Finisar
Corporation common stock during the period between December 2,
2010 and March 8, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 15.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/finisar/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Finisar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that
connect short-distance local area networks, storage area networks,
longer distance metropolitan area networks, fiber-to-the-home
networks, cable television networks and wide area networks.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Finisar's recent revenue growth was due to
an oversupply of inventory in the market and that the Company
would be unable to sustain its strong growth due to increased
pricing pressures and a slowdown in business from China. As a
result of defendants' false statements, Finisar's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $43.23 per share on Feb. 14, 2011.

Then, on March 8, 2011, after the market closed, Finisar issued a
press release announcing its third quarter fiscal year 2011
results. The Company reported earnings of $18.8 million, or $0.22
diluted earnings per share, and revenue of $263.0 million.  The
Company further reported its fourth quarter 2011 revenues would be
in the range of $235 to $250 million, lower than analysts'
estimates.  On this news, Finisar's stock fell $15.43 per share to
close at $24.61 per share on March 9, 2011, a one-day decline of
nearly 39%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) Finisar's recent revenue surge
was not due solely to organic growth from real end-market demand,
but rather it was partially due to an inventory build by the
Company's customers; (b) Finisar was experiencing increasing
pricing pressures due to intense competition in the industry and,
as a result, it was forced to concede to steep discounts in order
to retain certain of its customers; (c) Finisar was experiencing a
serious slowdown in business from China, which would have a
detrimental effect on the Company's ability to continue growing at
unprecedented rates; and (d) Finisar failed to disclose known
trends and uncertainties as required by SEC regulations concerning
its revenue growth rate.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Finisar common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia
and Atlanta, -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.


FIRST DATA CORP: Appeal in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling granting First Data Corp.'s motion
for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla Martinez
filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, its
subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial institutions.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the nature of the
case may require or as may seem just and proper to the court. Five
similar suits were filed and served in July, August and October
2004, two in the Central District of California (Los Angeles), two
in the Southern District of New York, and one in the Western
District of Washington (Seattle). All cases were transferred to
the Northern District Court of California and the Court
consolidated all of the ATM interchange cases pending against the
defendants in Brennan.

On August 3, 2007, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims. On March 24, 2008,
the Court entered an order granting the defendants' motions for
partial summary judgment. On February 2, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint and on April 6, 2009, the
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
On September 4, 2009, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Second Amended Complaint and, on October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on November 13, 2009. On
June 21, 2010, the Court partially dismissed plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint and ordered the parties to brief a summary
judgment on an alternative claim by plaintiffs. On September 16,
2010, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for
summary judgment, dismissing all of the claims against the
defendants except for the claims for equitable relief. The Court
granted judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case
on September 17, 2010. On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs
appealed the summary judgment.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.


FORCE PROTECTION: Awaits Final Order on Shareholder Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection, Inc., is awaiting a final court order approving
its $24 million settlement with the plaintiffs of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against it and its directors and
officers pending in South Carolina, according to the Company's
March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits
was filed against the Company and certain of its former and
current directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, on behalf of a
purported class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock during the period between August 14, 2006, and
February 29, 2008.  The complaints sought class certification, and
the allegations include, but are not limited to, that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and made
false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning
the Company's business, internal controls, and financial results.
The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10,
2008, under the caption In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH (Securities Class Action).
The parties to the Securities Class Action filed a stipulation of
settlement on September 27, 2010.  The Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on October 5, 2010, and at the
January 25, 2011 hearing on the parties' motions for final
approval of the settlement, the Court verbally stated that it
would approve the settlement, but has not yet issued a written
order concerning final approval.  The settlement amount is $24
million.

Neither the Company nor any of its present and former directors
and officers has admitted any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the settlement.  Additionally, the Company says
the settlement provides that the parties have reached a mutually
agreeable resolution of the case to avoid protracted and expensive
litigation, including the outcome and risks associated with
proceeding.


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Settlement in "Solis" Suit Reached
---------------------------------------------------------
Generex Biotechnology Corporation disclosed in its March 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2011, that it has successfully
reached a settlement to resolve a class action suit filed by
Colleen Solis.

On May 11, 2010, plaintiff Colleen Solis filed a class action
complaint against Generex and unidentified and unknown "Doe"
defendants in Riverside County Superior Court, in Riverside,
California.  Plaintiff sought to enjoin Generex from alleged
misleading advertising about CraveNX(TM) and to obtain a refund of
the purchase price she paid and restitution for the purported
class.  Plaintiff also sought certification of a class of
California consumers who purchased CraveNx(TM) in the past four
years.  On December 20, 2010, the action was dismissed with
prejudice after the parties agreed to settle.  Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, Generex paid plaintiff's legal fees, made a
donation to a charity selected by plaintiff, and agreed to revise
certain future advertising and product packaging identified in
plaintiff's complaint.


GLOBAL DEFENSE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Global
Defense Technology is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Ares Management and Sentinel Acquisition Corp., for
$24.25 a share or $315 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Bhat v. Global Defense Technology &
Systems, Inc., Case No. 6269 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Strum, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey Litigation Set for May 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., which has an interest in RSM McGladrey, disclosed
that trial in the class action lawsuit that RSM is involved in has
been set for May 2011, according to the Company's March 9, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

RSM EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006
and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court,
Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to
business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, including
allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in
addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on all claims. The defendants filed two requests for
interlocutory review of the decision, the last of which was denied
by the Supreme Court of California on September 30, 2009.  A trial
date has been set for May 2011.

The certified class consists of RSM EquiCo's U.S. clients who
signed platform agreements and for whom RSM EquiCo did not
ultimately market their business for sale. A portion of H&R's loss
contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount of
loss that it considers probable and estimable, although it is
possible that H&R's losses could exceed the amount it has accrued.
The fees paid to RSM EquiCo in connection with these agreements
total approximately $185 million, a number which substantially
exceeds the equity of RSM EquiCo. Plaintiffs seek to recover
restitution in an amount equal to the fees paid, in addition to
punitive damages and attorney fees. H&R believes it has
meritorious defenses to the case and intend to defend the case
vigorously. The amount claimed in this action is substantial and
could have a material adverse impact on H&R's consolidated results
of operations. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of
this matter.


H&R BLOCK: Still Awaits Consolidation Order in Wage & Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., is still awaiting an order consolidating several
wage and hour class action lawsuits after the parties agreed to
consolidate some of the cases into a single action because they
allege substantially identical claims, according to the Company's
March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

H&R has been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits
throughout the country, respectively styled Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008); Arabella
Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251
(United States District Court, Northern District of California,
filed June 9, 2009); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et
al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central
District of California, filed July 13, 2009); Barbara Petroski v.
H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075
(United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed
January 25, 2010); Lance Hom v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al.,
Case No. 10CV0476 H (United States District Court, Southern
District of California, filed March 4, 2010); and Stacy Oyer v.
H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00387-
WMS (United States District Court, Western District of New York,
filed May 10, 2010). These cases involve a variety of legal
theories and allegations including, among other things, failure to
compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to provide
employees with meal periods; failure to provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to
compensate for mandatory off-season training; and/or
misclassification of non-exempt employees.

The parties have agreed to consolidate certain of these cases into
a single action because they allege substantially identical
claims. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, in addition to
statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

H&R has not concluded that a loss related to these matters is
probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to these
matters. Moreover, H&R is not able to estimate a possible range of
loss.  The company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in these cases and intend to defend them vigorously. The
amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some
instances, however, and the ultimate liability with respect to
these matters is difficult to predict. There can be no assurances
as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on H&R's
consolidated results of operations, individually or in the
aggregate.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal on Reversal of Decertification Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., has been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants
in litigation regarding its refund anticipation loan program in
past years. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise
resolved, except for one.  The sole remaining case is a putative
class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc.,
et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of
Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs
allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the RAL product and
assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law
fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class
was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in
December 2003. An appellate court subsequently reversed the
decertification decision. The Company is appealing the reversal.
The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable nor has the Company accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter. Plaintiffs have not provided a dollar amount of
their claim and the Company is not able to estimate a possible
range of loss. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
this case and intend to defend it vigorously. There can be no
assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 9, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consumer Claims Settlement Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement agreement of consumer class action claims,
under putative consumer class actions and putative financial
institution class actions filed against Heartland Payment Systems,
Inc., is under advisement, according to the Company's March 10,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has had several lawsuits filed against it and
additional lawsuits may be filed.  These include lawsuits which
assert claims against the Company by cardholders (including
various putative class actions seeking in the aggregate to
represent all cardholders in the United States whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion), and banks that issued payment
cards to cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to
have been placed at risk in the course of the Processing System
Intrusion (including various putative class actions seeking to
represent all financial institutions that issued payment cards to
cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to have been
placed at risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion),
seeking damages allegedly arising out of the Processing System
Intrusion and other related relief.  The actions generally assert
various common-law claims like claims for negligence and breach of
contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims like
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes.  The putative cardholder class actions seek various
forms of relief including damages, injunctive relief, multiple or
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The putative
financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages,
including recovery of the cost of issuance of replacement cards
and losses by reason of unauthorized transactions, as well as
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the JPML) entered an order centralizing the class action cases
for pre-trial proceedings before the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046.  On August 24, 2009, the
court appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the
financial institution and consumer plaintiffs.  On September 23,
2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed a Master
Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the Company moved to
dismiss on October 23, 2009.  Briefing on that motion to dismiss
concluded on February 1, 2010, and the motion remains pending.  On
December 18, 2009, the Company and interim counsel for the
consumer plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposed settlement
agreement, subject to court approval, of the consumer class action
claims.  On May 3, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily
certifying the settlement class, authorizing notice to the class
to proceed, and scheduling a fairness hearing for December 10,
2010, which was later adjourned to December 13, 2010.  The Company
and interim consumer plaintiffs' counsel provided additional
information requested by the Court following the hearing, and the
Court has taken the proposed settlement under advisement.

The putative consumer class actions and putative financial
institution class actions filed against the Company and pending
through September 30, 2010 are:

Name of the Court    Date Filed           Principal Parties
-----------------    ----------           -----------------
U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey         January 23, 2009  Sansom and Engel v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          3:09-cv-00335

U.S. District Court
for the Northern
District of Florida  January 26, 2009     Read v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00035

U.S. District Court
for the District of
Arizona         January 29, 2009     Swenka v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 2:09-cv-00179

U.S. District Court
for the District of
Kansas         January 29, 2009     Barrett v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 09-cv-2053

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey         January 29, 2009     Merino v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00439

U.S. District Court
for the Middle
District of Alabama  February 2, 2009     Brown, Latham and
                                          Spencer v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 2:09-cv-00086

U.S. District Court
for the Eastern
District of Calif.   February 2, 2009     Hilliard v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 1:09-cv-00179

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey         February 2, 2009     Kaissi v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00540

U.S. District Court
for the Northern
District of Ohio     February 3, 2009  McGinty and Carr v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          1:09-cv-00244

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    February 4, 2009     Watson v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 4:09-cv-00325

U.S. District Court
for the Eastern
District of Wisc.    February 4, 2009     Anderson and Hoven v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          2:09-cv-00113

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Florida  February 6, 2009     Balloveras v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 1:09-cv-20326

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Calif.   February 25, 2009    Mata v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00376

U.S. District Court
for the Western
District of Missouri February 26, 2009    McLaughlin v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 6:09-cv-3069

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey         February 27, 2009    Rose v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00917

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Illinois April 21, 2009       Leavell v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 3:09-cv-00270

U.S. District Court
for the Eastern
District of
Arkansas         April 30, 2009       Brown v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 4:09-cv-00384

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey           February 6, 2009     Lone Summit Bank v.


                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          3:09- cv-00581

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey           February 13, 2009    TriCentury Bank et al.
                                          v. Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          3:09-cv-00697

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    February 16, 2009    Lone Star National Bank
                                          v. Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          7:09-cv-00064

U.S. District Court
for the District of
New Jersey           February 20, 2009    Amalgamated Bank et al.
                                          v. Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          3:09-cv-00776

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Florida  March 19, 2009       First Bankers Trust Co.,
                                          N.A. v. Heartland
                                          Payment Systems, Inc. et
                                          al., 4:09-cv-00825

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Florida  March 31, 2009       PBC Credit Union et al.
                                          v. Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          9:09-cv-80481

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    April 22, 2009       Community West Credit
                                          Union, et al. v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          4:09-cv-01201

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    April 22, 2009       Eden Financial Corp. v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          4:09-cv-01203

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    April 28, 2009       Heritage Trust Federal
                                          Credit Union v.
                                          Heartland Payment
                                          Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                          4:09-cv-01284

U.S. District Court
for the Southern
District of Texas    May 1, 2009           Pennsylvania State
                                           Employees Credit Union
                                           v. Heartland Payment
                                           Systems, Inc. et al.,
                                           4:09-cv-01330

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. --
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/-- the fifth largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid card
processing, gift marketing and loyalty programs, payroll, check
management and related business solutions to more than 250,000
business locations nationwide.  A FORTUNE 1000 company, Heartland
is the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  The company is also a leader in
the development of end-to-end encryption technology designed to
protect cardholder data, rendering it useless to cybercriminals.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Reaches Settlement in "McInerney & Zand" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., reached a tentative settlement
resolving the matter Ryan McInerney, Hossein Vazir Zand v.
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, according to the Company's
March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 16, 2008, the putative class action was filed against
the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of
individuals who allegedly were not reimbursed by the Company for
business expenses and whose compensation was allegedly reduced for
their costs of doing business.  The Company and the plaintiffs
have agreed to a tentative settlement to resolve the claims and
are working towards providing notice to the putative class members
and obtaining approval by the Court.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. --
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/-- the fifth largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid card
processing, gift marketing and loyalty programs, payroll, check
management and related business solutions to more than 250,000
business locations nationwide.  A FORTUNE 1000 company, Heartland
is the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  The company is also a leader in
the development of end-to-end encryption technology designed to
protect cardholder data, rendering it useless to cybercriminals.


HSBC HOLDINGS: To Appeal Illinois Court Ruling in "Jaffe" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc will appeal a November 2010 ruling against it in
a class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's
March 8, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 State Attorneys General
relating to real estate lending practices, Household International
(now HSBC Finance Corporation) and certain former officers were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household
International Inc, et al No 2. C 5893 (N.D.Ill, filed 19 August
2002).  Following a jury trial concluded in April 2009, the Court
issued a ruling on November 22, 2010, within the second phase of
the case to determine actual damages, that claim forms should be
mailed to class members and also set out a method for calculating
damages for class members who filed claims.  Despite the jury
verdict and the November 2010 ruling, HSBC continues to believe
that it has meritorious defenses and intends to seek an appeal of
the Court's ruling.

The Company says that the timing and outcome of the resolution of
this matter is uncertain.  Given the complexity and uncertainties
associated with the actual determination of damages, including but
not limited to the number of class members that may file valid
claims, the number of claims that can be substantiated by class
members providing adequate documentation, the reduction of trading
losses by any trading gains made over the relevant period, the
determination of reliance by class members on the financial
statements, and whether any given class member was the beneficial
owner of the shares, HSBC says it is unable at this time to
estimate reliably the amount of any damages or range of possible
damages that could arise, but they could be significant.


HYPERCOM CORPORATION: To Present Shareholder Suit Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation is expected to present for court approval no
later than the end of March a stipulated settlement with respect
to consolidated shareholder lawsuits in Arizona and Delaware,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011, Form 10-K-filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

Commencing shortly after Verifone Systems Inc. publicly announced
on September 30, 2010 that it had made an offer to acquire
Hypercom and continuing following the announcement by the Company
and VeriFone on November 17, 2010, that they have entered into a
definitive merger agreement, certain putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging
variously, among other things, that the board of directors of
Hypercom breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger and that VeriFone, Honey Acquisition Co., Hypercom, FP
Hypercom Holdco, LLC, and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and
abetted that alleged breach.  These actions include: Gerber v.
Hypercom, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case no. CA5868; Anarkat v.
Hypercom, Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2010-032482; Small v.
Hypercom Corporation, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case no. CA6031;
Grayson v. Hypercom Corporation, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case
no. CA6044; and The Silverstein Living Trust v. Hypercom
Corporation, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case no. CV2010-
030941.  The Anarkat and Silverstein cases have been consolidated
in Maricopa County Superior Court as In Re Hypercom Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2010-032482, and the Small
and Grayson cases have been consolidated in the Delaware Court of
Chancery as In Re Hypercom Corporation Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6031-VCL.  The Gerber case is dormant as the
plaintiffs in that case have not prosecuted it since it was filed.
On February 14, 2011, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in
the Actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to
which (i) the Company provided additional disclosures recommended
by the plaintiffs to supplement its proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, (ii) the defendants agreed to
provide plaintiffs' counsel with reasonable confirmatory discovery
regarding the fairness and adequacy of the settlement and the
additional disclosures, and (iii) the parties agreed to use their
best efforts to execute and present to the court a formal
stipulation of settlement within 45 days seeking court approval of
(a) the settlement and dismissal of the Actions with prejudice,
(b) the stay of all proceedings in the Actions, (c) the
conditional certification of the Actions as a class action under
Arizona law, (d) the release of all claims against the parties,
(e) the defendants' payment of $510,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel
for their fees and expenses, (f) the defendants' responsibility
for providing notice of the settlement to members of the class,
and (g) the dismissal of the Delaware actions following the
court's final approval of the settlement.

While the defendants deny that they have committed any violations
of law or breaches of duties to the plaintiffs, the class or
anyone else, and believe that their disclosures in the proxy
statement regarding the merger were appropriate and adequate under
applicable law, the defendants entered into the settlement solely
to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of
further litigation and to lessen the risk of any delay of the
closing of the merger as a result of the litigation.  The
defendants have agreed that the payment to the plaintiffs' counsel
will be jointly funded equally by VeriFone and the carrier of
Hypercom's directors and officers liability insurance policy,
while the Company will bear the cost of the $250,000 deductible
amount under the insurance policy.

Hypercom is one of the largest global providers of complete
electronic payment and transaction solutions and value-added
services at the point of transaction.


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on the
appeal filed in the class action lawsuit related to the Company's
initial public offering, according to the Company's March 10, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 2, 2011.

In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors and two former
executive officers, as well as the lead underwriters for its
initial and secondary public offerings. The lawsuits were
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages for certain
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company in
connection with both its initial public offering in September 2005
and its follow-on offering in March 2006. On June 25, 2007, the
Company filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 10, 2008, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On
March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and
on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration. On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of
its motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 17, 2009, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the amended
complaint, but vacated its judgment on the motion for
reconsideration and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. On May 13, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend the pleadings.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on
June 11, 2010. The Company opposed on July 11, 2010, and on
November 23, 2010, the District Court denied the motion. On
January 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A briefing
schedule for the appeal has not yet been scheduled. The Company
cannot predict the likely outcome of the appeal, and an adverse
result in the litigation could have a material effect on its
financial statements.

Ikanos Communications Inc. -- http://www.ikanos.com/-- engages
in the development and provision of programmable semiconductors
that enable fiber-fast broadband services over telephone
companies' existing copper lines.  The company offers very-high-
bit-rate digital subscriber lines that are designed to address
different segments of the broadband semiconductor market for
carrier networks and subscriber premises equipment.


INTERMUNE INC: Answering Briefs on Dismissal Appeal Due March 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune, Inc.'s answering brief with respect to appeals from the
order dismissing consolidated cases against them in California are
due March 24, 2011, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
C-08-02376.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint
alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted
Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint asserted various claims against
the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation
of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint sought various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the
reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  The
complaint also sought equitable relief.

Between June 2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging similar facts.  In February 2009,
the Court consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.
The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard in February
2009.  In April 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
complaints in all four cases in their entirety and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints.  Following the initial
motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and on January 25, 2010, the Company and the other defendants each
filed motions to dismiss the most recently filed amended
complaints.  Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs
have filed an opposition to these motions.  All these motions were
fully briefed as of March 8, and were heard on May 10, 2010.

On September 1, 2010, the Court issued an opinion dismissing all
remaining claims in all consolidated cases with prejudice and
entered judgment accordingly.  On October 1, 2010, the remaining
plaintiffs in all cases filed notices of appeal, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Plaintiffs' opening briefs were filed on February 14,
2011.  The Company and other defendants' answering briefs are due
on March 24, 2011, and plaintiffs' optional reply briefs are due
within 14 days of service of the last-served answering brief.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.  The Company says it may enter into discussions
regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into
settlement agreements, if the Company believes settlement is in
the best interests of its stockholders.  The Company adds that it
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from these lawsuits.


INVESTORS TITLE: Still Defends "Price-Fixing Conspiracy" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Title Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging price-fixing, according to the Company's
March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against several
title insurance companies, including Investors Title Insurance
Company, entitled Backel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance et
al. (6:2008-CV-00181).  The plaintiff in this case contends a lack
of meaningful oversight by agencies with which title insurance
rates are filed and approved.  There are further allegations that
the title insurance companies have conspired to fix title
insurance rates.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including
treble damages, as well as injunctive relief.  Similar suits have
been filed in other jurisdictions, several of which, have already
been dismissed. In West Virginia, the case has been placed on the
inactive list pending the resolution of the bankruptcy of
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.  The Company believes that this
case is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against
the allegations. At this stage in the litigation, the Company does
not have the ability to make a reasonable range of estimates in
regards to potential loss amounts, if any.


JACKSON HEWITT: "Harper" Class Suit in Pre-trial Stage
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Christian Harper and Elizabeth
Harper against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is in its pre-trial
stage, according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2011.

On October 30, 2006, Linda Hunter, now substituted by Christian
Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives,
brought a purported class action complaint against the Company in
the United States District Court, Southern District of West
Virginia, on behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained refund
anticipation loans facilitated by the Company, seeking damages for
an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, for alleged breach of West
Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act for alleged breach of
contract, and for alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
connection with the Company's RAL facilitation activities. On
March 13, 2008, the Court granted the Company's partial motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On
July 15, 2008, the Company answered the first amended complaint.
On February 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class. The Company opposed that motion. On February 11, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On
February 11, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment. On March 6, 2009, the Company opposed Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment. On September 29, 2009, the Court
denied the summary judgment motions without prejudice. A decision
by the Court on the class certification motion is currently
pending. On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
certifications of four legal questions to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals. On November 12, 2009, the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals ordered the review of those four
certified legal questions. The West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals issued its answers to the certified questions on
November 23, 2010 and held that the Company met the definition of
a "Consumer Services Organization" and that the Plaintiff was a
"Buyer" under the CSOA. On December 22, 2010, the Company filed a
Petition for Rehearing before the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals on those two issues. On January 13, 2011, the Court denied
the Company's petition and subsequently transferred the case back
to the United States District Court, Southern District of West
Virginia. On February 25, 2011, the Company filed a memorandum in
further support of its pending motion for summary judgment and in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The case
is in its pretrial stage. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and is contesting this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Decision in "Wooley" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision in the class action lawsuit filed by Brent Wooley
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains pending, according
to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain unknown franchisees in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on
behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services
that allegedly included false deductions without support by the
customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the Internal
Revenue Service against the taxpayer for violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the
Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleging unjust
enrichment and breach of contract, seeking compensatory and
punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act relate to representations regarding tax return preparation,
Basic Guarantee and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold
Guarantee claims. Following dispositive motions, on December 24,
2008, the Company answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint
with respect to the remaining breach of contract claim. On
January 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. On
February 12, 2010, the Company Answered the Fifth Amended
Complaint. On April 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The Company opposed that motion. A decision by the
Court is currently pending. The case is in its pretrial stage. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is contesting
this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Maryland Court Affirms "Gomez" Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the class action lawsuit brought by Alicia Gomez against Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service Inc., according to the Company's March 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On February 16, 2009, Alicia Gomez brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of
Maryland, Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who
obtained refund anticipation loans facilitated by the Company, for
an alleged failure to comply with Maryland's Credit Services
Businesses Act, and for an alleged violation of Maryland's
Consumer Protection Act, and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. On March 18, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint. On
July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals. On January 10, 2011, the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal. If Plaintiff petitions for
a writ of certiorari in the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Company
will continue to contest this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal in "Norris" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit brought by Quiana Norris
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains pending, according
to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of Indiana,
Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who obtained refund
anticipation loans facilitated by the Company, for an alleged
failure to comply with Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act,
and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On May 1, 2009, the
Company filed a notice removing the complaint to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On June 8,
2009 the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On December 7, 2009,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in all respects,
dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint. On January 18, 2010,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On February 4, 2010,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
On June 28, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint with prejudice. On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal. The Company believes it has meritorious
arguments in opposing this appeal and will continue to contest
this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Missouri Court Reverses Dismissal of "Fugate" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the
order dismissing the class action lawsuit filed by Sherita Fugate
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., according to the
Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Missouri,
Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who obtained
refund anticipation loans facilitated by the Company, for an
alleged failure to comply with Missouri's Credit Services
Organization Act, for an alleged violation of Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. On May 29, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 10, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint. On
April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On March 1,
2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the Circuit Court's decision and remanded to the Circuit Court for
further proceedings. The Company intends to appeal by seeking a
transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Company believes it
has meritorious arguments and will continue to contest this matter
vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
An Ohio court affirmed the dismissal of the class action lawsuit
brought by Nancee Thomas against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On September 2, 2009, Nancee Thomas brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained
refund anticipation loans facilitated by the Company, for an
alleged failure to comply with Ohio's Credit Services Organization
Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On October 15,
2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On December 8, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Paul Thomas as
an additional plaintiff. On March 25, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal. On February 10, 2011, the Court affirmed the
dismissal. The Court did not decide the application of the Credit
Services Organization Act. If Plaintiff seeks discretionary review
in the Ohio Supreme Court, the Company will continue to contest
this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JACKSON HEWITT: Motion to Dismiss "Carriere" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit brought by Cecile Carriere remains pending,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On April 29, 2010, Cecile Carriere brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the District Court for the
Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, on behalf of Louisiana customers
who obtained refund anticipation loans and other loans facilitated
by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply with Louisiana
loan broker statutes, for rescission, payment of a thing not owed,
and seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. On
June 9, 2010, the Company removed the matter to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On June 16,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2010,
the Court issued its opinion, and granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects except for a remaining claim for
rescission. The Company filed an answer on November 17, 2010 with
respect to the remaining claim. On December 21, 2010, the Company
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of
the remaining count. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and will continue to contest this matter vigorously.

Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns in the United States through a nationwide
network of franchised and company-owned offices operating under
the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service(R).  The Company
provides its customers with convenient, fast and quality tax
return preparation services and electronic filing.  In connection
with their tax return preparation experience, the Company's
customers may select various financial products to suit their
needs, including refund anticipation loans ("RALs") in the offices
where such financial products are available.


JO-ANN STORES: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., remains a defendant in purported shareholder
derivative and class action complaints filed in an Ohio state
court arising from the proposed merger of the Company and an
affiliate of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., according to the
Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In connection with the proposed acquisition of the Leonard Green
affiliate of the Company for $1.6 billion, on December 30, 2010
and January 14, 2011, respectively, purported shareholder
derivative and class action complaints were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Summit County, the State of Ohio against the
Company, members of its board of directors, Leonard Green &
Partners and its affiliates.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that (1) the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and
independence owed to the Company and the Company's public
shareholders and have acted to put their personal interests ahead
of the interests of the Company and (2) Leonard Green aided and
abetted such members' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission of the merger agreement and awarding the plaintiffs
their costs and disbursements in prosecuting the actions including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.  The Company, the members
of its board of directors and each of the other named defendants
believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend
each of them vigorously.  The Company does not expect that these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company and its subsidiary continue to defend
about 50 lawsuits, including two purported class actions arising
from damages caused by tablets distributed by the Company,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The Company and/or ETHEX Corporation are named defendants in at
least 50 pending product liability or other lawsuits that relate
to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late
2008 and early 2009.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege
damages as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized
tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are
pending in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions.  The
50 pending lawsuits include 13 that have settled but have not yet
been dismissed.  In the 50 pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege
economic harm, 35 plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, and the
plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical
injuries.  Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on
various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict
liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding,
fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims.  Plaintiffs
seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages.  Two of the
lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the lawsuits is on
behalf of 29 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual
lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.  The Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against
them, except where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate.


KOREAN AIRLINES: Settles Airfare-Fixing Conspiracy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinsella Media, Court-approved Notice Provider for In re Korean
Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, disclosed that a
Proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit for
air travelers who flew to and from Korea.  Individuals who bought
plane tickets in the United States from Asiana Airlines, Inc. and
Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. for air travel between the U.S. and the
Republic of Korea between Jan. 1, 2000 and Aug. 1, 2007 could be
affected by the case.  The case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Settlement resolves claims arising from Asiana and Korean
Air's conspiracy to unlawfully increase the cost of passenger
airfares and the fuel surcharge element of ticket prices.  Asiana
pleaded guilty in the U.S. to fixing passenger fares charged on
flights from the United States to Korea.  Asiana has agreed to pay
$11 million in cash, $10 million in travel vouchers, and up to
$60,000 in notice and administration costs.

Individual passengers and businesses that bought an Asiana and/or
Korean Air ticket from Jan. 1, 2000 to Aug. 1, 2007 should be
entitled to cash benefits and/or travel vouchers.  The ticket(s)
must have been purchased in the U.S. for a flight originating in
the U.S. and ending in Korea, or a flight originating in Korea and
ending in the U.S.  Cash benefits and travel vouchers are not
available yet, but potential Class Members are encouraged to save
records of their purchases and check the Web site,
http://www.KoreanAirPassengerCases.com/for information on how to
receive a claim form once they become available.

Class Members have a choice of whether or not to stay in the
Class.  If Class Members choose to stay in the Class, they will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and they
will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants for
the issues involved in this lawsuit.  To stay in the Class, Class
Members do not have to do anything now.  Class Members who choose
to stay in the Class may object to or comment on the Settlement,
and must do so by May 16, 2011.

Class Members that do not wish to be included in the Settlement
can ask to be excluded from the Class.  They will not get any
money or benefits from this lawsuit, but they will keep any rights
to sue the Defendants for these claims, now or in the future, and
will not be bound by any orders or judgments of the Court.  Class
Members must exclude themselves in writing by May 16, 2011.

For more information regarding this lawsuit and Class Member
rights, including how Class Members can exclude themselves and how
to get a copy of a detailed notice, please visit
http://www.KoreanAirPassengerCases.com/call 1-888-261-1921, or
write to:  Korean Air Passenger Antitrust litigation, P.O. Box
24720, West Palm Beach, FL 33416.


LEVEL 3: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel in Koyle v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., No.
01-0286-S-BLW disclosed that preliminary approval of a Proposed
Settlement was granted by the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho.  The lawsuit involves Telecommunications
Facilities, such as fiber-optic cable that is buried in railroad
Rights of Way.  People who own or owned land next to or under
railroad Rights of Way in Idaho may be eligible to receive
benefits.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Level 3 Communications, LLC
are companies that are engaged in the maintenance and commercial
use of fiber-optic telecommunications systems.  Beginning in the
early 1980s, the companies or their predecessors buried fiber-
optic cable and installed related telecommunications equipment
within railroad Rights of Way across the United States.  A
railroad Right of Way is a strip of land on which a railroad
company builds and operates a railroad.  Sprint and Level 3
entered into agreements with the railroads that own or occupy the
Rights of Way, and under those agreements paid the railroads for
the rights to install the telecommunications equipment within the
Rights of Way at issue in the case.

The lawsuit alleges that, before installing the telecommunications
equipment, the communications companies were required also to
obtain consent from those landowners who owned the land under the
Rights of Way.  Sprint and Level 3 contend that the permissions
granted by the railroads were sufficient, even where the railroad
did not own all property rights in the Rights of Way, and deny any
wrongdoing.

Class Members include current or previous owners of land next to
or under a railroad Right of Way, at any time since the cable was
installed, in the following counties: Minidoka, Lincoln, Gooding,
Elmore, Ada, Canyon, Kootenai, and Bonner. Class members can find
out when fiber-optic cable was installed in a particular Right of
Way by visiting http://www.IdahoFiberSettlement.com/or calling
1-877-625-9417.  Class members will have an opportunity to claim
cash benefits if the Court approves the Proposed Settlement.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

    * the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed,

    * the length of time they owned the property, and

    * whether the Right of Way was created by a federal land
      grant.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide Sprint and Level 3 with
a permanent Telecommunications Easement, which gives them the
right to use the railroad Rights of Way for their
telecommunications equipment.

For more information regarding the Class Action visit
http://www.IdahoFiberSettlement.com/or call 1-877-625-9417.


LIFE PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over Life Settlement Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Dallas' Heygood, Orr & Pearson have filed a class-
action lawsuit in Dallas County on behalf of investors who claim
Waco-based Life Partners Inc. is wrongfully withholding thousands
of dollars investors paid in order to purchase so-called "life
settlement" policies.

Life Partners purchases life insurance policies from policyholders
for the purpose of selling interests in those policies to groups
of investors.  Policyholders receive an immediate, but reduced,
payment with Life Partners' investors receiving the full face
value upon the policyholder's death.

A portion of the money investors pay goes into an escrow account
that funds the premiums until the policyholder's death.  If the
policyholder dies before a date that is assigned by Life Partners,
then the remaining escrow funds are supposed to be returned to the
investors.

The lawsuit alleges Life Partners failed to return escrow funds to
investor Helen Z. McDermott, who paid $12,500 for a 0.23% interest
in a life settlement.  Although the policyholder who sold the
policy to Life Partners in 2008 had a 5-year life expectancy, the
individual died the following year.

According to the lawsuit, Life Partners claimed the remaining
escrow money was no longer available because it made additional
"early" payments to the insurance company that held the underlying
policy.

Her attorneys are asking the court to certify other Life Partners
investors as a class because of the many people who owned shares
in the same policy as Ms. McDermott, and because it is believed
that other investors may be in the same position on other
policies.

"We believe this is not the only time Life Partners has done
this," says James Craig Orr Jr., the lead attorney for
Ms. McDermott and a name partner in Heygood, Orr & Pearson.
"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly situated
investors who are owed significant sums by Life Partners."

The lawsuit, Helen Z. McDermott v. Life Partners Inc., No. DC-11-
02966, was filed on March 11 in Dallas County's 191st District
Court.

Life Partners also is facing an investigation by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission over its life expectancy
estimations after other groups of investors claimed that the
company intentionally underestimated life expectancies as a way to
entice investors to purchase shares of life settlements.  Once
those policyholders exceed their life expectations, investors are
required to pay additional money to maintain the life insurance
policy premiums.

For information, please contact Mark Annick at mark@androvett.com
or 800-559-4534.


LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Sale of Viatical Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action seeks
rescission, restitution and damages for Life Partners' and
Abundant Income's sale of viatical settlements, which they
allegedly did not register as securities, in violation of Texas
law.

A copy of the Complaint in Arnold, et ux. v. Life Partners, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-02995 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/15/Viatical.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott C. Skelton, Esq.
          ZELESKEY LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 1728
          Lufkin, TX 75902-1728
          Telephone: (936) 632-3381


LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Response to Massachusetts Complaint Due Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
LTX-Credence Corporation's response to a consolidated complaint
pending before a Massachusetts state court is due March 18, 2011,
according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On November 23, 2010, the Company and its directors were named as
defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Shah v.
Tacelli, et. al., No. 10- 4580, filed in the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  On December 3, 2010, the Company,
its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2
Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action
complaint, captioned Krieger v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., No.
10-04713, filed in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.  On December 20, 2010, the Shah and Krieger actions
were consolidated. On January 6, 2011, a consolidated complaint
was filed.  The Consolidated Complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of shareholders, alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell
the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of
public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly.
The complaint further alleges that the Company and non-LTX-
Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported
breaches.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy Ltd.
from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs.
Defendants' responses to the Consolidated Complaint are currently
due March 18, 2011, and some discovery has occurred in this
consolidated action.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these suits are
without merit.  Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a
liability for any of these actions as of January 31, 2011.


LTX-CREDENCE CORP: "Keuler" Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------
A putative class action entitled Keuler v. LTX-Credence Corp., et
al. remains stayed in favor of a consolidated action before a
Massachusetts state court, according to LTX-Credence Corp.'s
March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On November 30, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger
Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants
in a putative class action complaint, captioned Keuler v. LTX-
Credence Corp., et. al., 1:10-cv-12058, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  That action,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, alleges
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger with Verigy Ltd., and also
seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the
merger.  On January 13, 2011, defendants filed a motion to stay
this action in favor of the consolidated action pending in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the
motion was granted on February 22, 2011.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in this suit are
without merit.  Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a
liability for the action as of January 31, 2011.


MAGMA DESIGN: National Union to Appeal $5 Million Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
National Union intends to take an appeal of a ruling issued by a
trial court in the case captioned Genesis Insurance Company v.
Magma Design Automation, et al., Case No. 06-5526-JW, ordering it
to pay $5 million, according to Magma Design Automation, Inc.'s
March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 30, 2011.

In the Genesis Suit, filed on September 8, 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Genesis seeks a declaration of its rights and obligations under an
excess directors and officers liability policy for defense and
settlement costs arising out of the securities class action
against the Company, in re: Magma Design Automation, Inc.
Securities Litigation, as well as a related derivative lawsuit.
Genesis seeks a return of $5.0 million it paid towards the
settlement of the securities class action and derivative lawsuits
from the Company or from another of the Company's excess directors
and officers liability insurers, National Union.  The Company
contends that either Genesis or National Union owes the settlement
amounts, but not Magma Design.  The trial court granted summary
judgment for Magma Design and National Union, finding that Genesis
owed the settlement amount.  Genesis appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and Magma Design cross-appealed.  On July 12,
2010, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Genesis does not
owe the settlement amount under its policy, and remanded the case
to the trial court for further proceedings.  On December 20, 2010,
the trial court ruled on various cross-motions that National Union
owes the settlement amount to Genesis.

The court entered a judgment in favor of Genesis and Magma Design
on March 2, 2011, requiring that National Union pay $5.0 million
plus prejudgment interest to Genesis.  National Union has stated
that it intends to appeal.  While there can be no assurance as to
the ultimate disposition of the litigation, Magma Design does not
believe that its resolution will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


MATERION CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Anthony" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's ruling granting
summary judgment in favor of Materion Corporation and other
defendants in the lawsuit filed by Gary Anthony, according to the
Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action captioned Gary Anthony v. Small Tube
Manufacturing Corporation, doing business as Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case number 000525, on
September 7, 2006.  The case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-CV-
4419, on October 4, 2006.  The only named plaintiff was Gary
Anthony.  The defendants were Small Tube Manufacturing
Corporation, doing business as Small Tube Products Corporation,
Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and Cabot
Corporation.  The plaintiff purported to sue on behalf of a class
of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in
Sellersville, Pennsylvania who had been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.  The
plaintiff brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff sought the
establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of
publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses.  Defendant
Tube Methods, Inc., filed a third-party complaint against Brush
Wellman Inc. now known as Materion Brush Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, in that action on November 15, 2006.  Tube Methods
alleged that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S.
Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that
Brush was liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and
contribution.  Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party
complaint on October 19, 2007.

On February 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD).  On September 30, 2008, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of all of the
defendants and dismissed plaintiff's class action complaint.  On
October 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  The Court
of Appeals granted a motion to stay the appeal due to the
bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium Petrochemicals.  On
July 29, 2009, after relief from a bankruptcy stay, Materion
Corporation and the other appellees filed their brief in the Court
of Appeals.  The Court heard oral argument on January 11, 2010.
On June 7, 2010, the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.


MATILDA JANE: Recalls 1,500 Girl's Dress
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Matilda Jane LLC of Fort Wayne, Ind., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,500 Girl's Dress.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The buttons can come off, posing a choking hazard.

Matilda Jane has received one report of an incident with no
injuries.

The Chelsa dress is a girl's sleeveless sundress in sizes 2, 4,
and 6.  The top is white with green polka dots; the bottom is
printed with a green and yellow floral design and has a multi-
colored floral border at the hem.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11171.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
in-home trunk shows and online from February 1 through Feb. 25,
2011.

Anyone possessing this dress should return it for repair or refund
by contacting Matilda Jane Clothing.  For more information,
contact Matilda Jane Clothing at recall@matildajaneclothing.com ,
call collect at 260-424-3511 or visit
http://www.matildajaneclothing.com/


MEDTRONIC INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit in Minnesota, according to the Company's
March 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2011.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants made false and misleading public statements
concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially
inflated Medtronic's stock price during the period. On August 21,
2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action
complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was denied on February 3, 2010, and
pretrial proceedings are underway.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC: Sued for Restricting School Transfer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that junior college
football players say in a federal class action that the NCAA and
California colleges unconstitutionally restrict their ability to
transfer to, play ball for, and get financial aid from four-year
schools.

The seven named plaintiffs claim the NCAA, the University of
California, Cal State and other four-year California schools
violate the 14th Amendment by enforcing a bylaw that prevents
junior college students from getting financial aid from a
Division I four-year school, extends the amount of time they must
spend as full-time students at a two-year college before they may
receive financial aid, and prevents them from getting an education
or playing at a Division I school.

The class claims that "student-athletes attending a two-year
college who wish to transfer to a four-year college to participate
in Division I Intercollegiate Athletics, eligibility for practice,
athletically related financial aid, and play is determined based
on whether the student was a 'qualifier' or 'nonqualifier' at the
time the student-athlete graduated from high school."

A nonqualifier is a student who did not graduate from high school,
or did not achieve the minimum grade-point average or SAT score
required for a qualifier.

Before Aug. 1, 2009, a nonqualifier enrolling full time in a two-
year college was eligible for financial aid, practice and
competition if he or she graduated from the college,
satisfactorily completed "a minimum of 48-semester of 72-quarter
hours of transferable degree credit acceptable toward any
baccalaureate degree program," had a minimum GPA of 2.0, and
attended the college for at least three semesters or four
quarters, according to the complaint.

The bylaw was amended by the Southeastern Conference on July 20,
2007 and enacted after Aug. 1, 2009, "to require successful
completion prior to transfer to the four-year school of six
semester or eight quarter hours of transferable English credit and
three semester or four quarter hours of transferable math credit,"
according to the complaint.

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) claimed that the additional
requirements would "help ensure that students who were
nonqualifiers have the academic tools for success."

But the class claims that the "statements by the SEC were not
based on the SEC's consideration of any studies or other analysis
suggesting that the additional requirements were necessary,
appropriate, or likely to have any effect other than reducing the
number of 'non-qualifier' student-athletes who are allowed to
receive financial aid from or compete at Division I institutions."

The class claims that the NCAA rules impose no such requirements
"on any other class of student-athletes, either as a condition of
transferring from another institution or of maintaining
eligibility for financial aid and participating in Division I
sports."

Lead plaintiff Reginald Davis, a full-time student at City College
of San Francisco, says he was recruited by a number of Division I
schools, but is not eligible for financial aid though he scored
higher than 1,300 on his combined SAT in high school and
maintained a 3.35 GPA at CCSF.

The bylaw "arbitrarily singles out plaintiffs and other junior
college student-athletes for disparate treatment in the granting
of athletic scholarships, and unfairly denies or unconscionably
burdens their ability to obtain an education and compete in
college athletics at the Division I level," the class claims.

The class claims the NCAA and its codefendants violate the
students' constitutional rights by dictating "when and whether
they may transfer to a four-year school."

Many student-athletes rely on athletic-based financial aid to get
a college education, including "a disproportionate number . . .
[who] are from communities of color or who grew up in an at-risk
environment," the complaint states.  The class adds that
"attending a junior college is their only option for continuing
their education after high school and their last meaningful chance
for success."

The class seeks declaratory judgment and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Davis, et al. v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01207 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/15/NCAA2.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen S. Walters, Esq.
          Robert R. Moore, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Subias, Esq.
          Cathy A. Hongola, ESq.
          Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
          ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
          Telephone: (415) 837-1515
          E-mail: swalters@allenmatkins.com
                  rmoore@allenmatkins.com
                  nsubias@allenmatkins.com
                  chongola@allenmatkins.com
                  bhawkins@allenmatkins.com


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to transfer venue of diesel engine complaints against
Navistar Inc. for consolidated pre-trial proceedings are due for
arguments at the end of March, according to Navistar International
Corporation's March 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc., and Ford Motor Company in federal
court for the Southern District of California.  The Burns Action
seeks to certify a class of California owners and lessees of model
year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R)
engine that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford.  Burns
alleges that the engines in question have design and manufacturing
defects.  The theories of liability asserted against Navistar,
Inc. are negligent performance of contractual duty (related to the
former Navistar, Inc. contract with Ford), unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.  For relief, the Burns Action seeks dollar
damages sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the
alleged damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate
plaintiffs' counsel.  The Burns Action also asks the Court to
award punitive damages and restitution/disgorgement.

Since the filing of the Burns Action, 10 additional putative class
action lawsuits making materially identical allegations have been
filed in federal courts across the country -- the "Additional
Actions" and, collectively with the Burns Action, the "6.0 L
Diesel Engine Litigation".  The Additional Actions seek to certify
in Utah, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Maine,
Ohio, Virginia and in two separate districts in North Carolina
classes similar to the proposed California class in the Burns
Action.  The theories of liability and relief sought in the
Additional Actions are substantially similar to the Burns Action.

In December 2010, Navistar, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
Burns Action.  Burns filed a response on February 14, 2011, and
Navistar, Inc. filed a reply on February 22, 2011.  Navistar, Inc.
filed answers and affirmative defenses in six of the Additional
Actions.  Navistar, Inc. has not been served in the remaining four
Additional Actions.

In December 2010, plaintiff's counsel in six of the cases filed a
motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
seeking to transfer all six of the cases he filed, along with the
Custom Underground case (another similar case pending in Chicago,
where Navistar, Inc. is not a defendant), to federal court in
either the Southern District of California or the Middle District
of Tennessee for consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  On
January 3, 2011, Navistar, Inc. filed an opposition to the motion
to transfer and consolidate and plaintiffs filed a reply on
January 10, 2011.

On February 17, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel in the five remaining
cases filed a motion before the JPML, seeking to transfer the
Additional Cases, along with the Custom Underground case, to the
Middle District of Tennessee for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.  The JPML has set these motions for argument on
March 30, 2011.


NEW YORK CITY: Settlement Reached in Foster Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mosi Secret, writing for The New York Times, reports that New York
City is no longer allowed to keep troubled foster-care children in
psychiatric hospitals after doctors have recommended their
release, and must closely adhere to laws that require such
children to be placed in the least restrictive setting possible,
after reaching a settlement agreement in federal court last week.

The agreement came less than a year after a class action lawsuit
was filed against the Administration for Children's Services,
which oversees the care of nearly 15,000 foster children in the
city.  The suit, filed in United States District Court in
Brooklyn, alleged that the agency confined children in psychiatric
hospitals for prolonged periods, sometimes when there was no need
for them to be in the hospital at all, and that it used the
hospitals "as if they are detention centers."

Under the terms of the settlement, the city agreed to issue
mandatory guidelines regarding children who are admitted to
psychiatric hospitals, to track and monitor the children and to
provide training for city employees and their counterparts at
contract foster-care agencies who make the hospital referrals.

A key component of the agreement was a requirement for the
Administration for Children's Services to notify a child's lawyer
as soon as the child is placed in a psychiatric hospital.  "It
certainly will assist in moving these cases along because there is
plenty of advocacy we could do to ensure our clients don't
languish," said Tamara Steckler, the lead attorney of the juvenile
rights practice at the Legal Aid Society, which filed the suit
along with lawyers from Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.

The city must issue regular reports to the plaintiffs' lawyers
under the agreement, which remains in effect for five years.

The settlement also awarded monetary damages to the three lead
plaintiffs in the suit -- children who were identified only by
their initials -- and legal fees to their lawyers.  The amounts of
the awards have not been determined.  The city admitted no
wrongdoing in the case.

According to the original complaint, the lead plaintiffs were held
in psychiatric facilities for weeks and months beyond the dates
doctors deemed them ready for release.  They were rarely permitted
to leave the hospital, regularly administered psychotropic
medications and sometimes chemically restrained with
tranquilizers.  Ms. Steckler said they had since been released to
more appropriate settings.

State law requires the city to place each foster child in "the
least restrictive and most homelike setting in which the child can
be maintained safely."  Emergency psychiatric care is generally
considered the most restrictive.  Less restrictive settings
include residential treatment facilities, group homes and foster-
care homes in which the foster parents have been specially trained
to treat troubled children.

The foster-care agencies have, however, often had difficulty
persuading less restrictive homes to accept children with a
history of psychiatric trouble.  Thus, children languished while
the agencies tried to find them homes.

The Administration for Children's Services said it had been
working with foster-care agencies to train and assist them in
finding treatment options, and had already moved to put in place
many changes required by the settlement.  The commissioner of the
agency, John B. Mattingly, issued a memorandum in May 2010, about
two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, detailing changes to the
way the city provides psychiatric care for children in foster
care.

A lawyer for the city characterized the settlement as a
culmination of efforts to improve care for the children.  "We are
pleased to have been able to resolve this matter amicably," Martha
Calhoun, senior counsel in the city's law department, said in a
written statement.  "A.C.S. has been building a stronger system
for foster children and youth with psychiatric issues for a number
of years."


NORBOURG: Class Action Lawyers Seek $11 Million in Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Delean, writing for The Gazette, reports that the lawyers who
negotiated a $55-million out-of-court settlement on behalf of the
wronged investors of Norbourg mutual funds are seeking $11 million
of it as their fair share.

It's equivalent to 20% of the amount recovered, which was the
percentage agreed upon when the class-action suit was initiated in
2005 and confirmed on a couple of subsequent occasions, lawyer
Pierre Sylvestre told Superior Court Judge Andre Prevost on
March 14.

Mr. Sylvestre was arguing on behalf of the law firms of Jacques
Larochelle, Yves Lauzon and Serge Letourneau, who collaborated on
the class-action suit on behalf of 9,200 investors left high and
dry when the Norbourg funds folded in 2005.

In January, just before the case was to go to trial, the $55-
million settlement was concluded with defendants that included
Quebec securities regulator Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF),
accounting firms KPMG and Beaulieu Deschambault, and trust
companies Concentra and Northern Trust Co. of Canada.

That settlement requires court approval before becoming official,
and the judge has the discretion to determine the legal fees.

Mr. Sylvestre said a 20% cut for lawyers was not unusual in class-
action suits, which sometimes go as high as 30% or 32%.

Though the sum is large, so is the risk the lawyers took when they
signed on for the case six years ago, since their compensation
depended on their results, he said.

Norbourg investors were not obliged to advance any funds for the
lawsuit, and the cost to them amounts to a little over $1,100 per
person if the 20-per-cent figure is retained, Mr. Sylvestre said.

"It's not excessive, given the results obtained for all members of
the group, who took no risk," he said.  "It was an exceptional
result, getting back 100 per cent of the capital."

The lawyers received a combined total of more than $687,555 from a
special aid fund for class-action suits while the case progressed,
which they now will repay.

The 7,500 hours they spent on the case would have amounted to $2.4
million in fees, calculated at a rate of $150 to $400 an hour, if
that had been the agreed method of payment, Mr. Sylvestre said.

A figure of $400 an hour for the lead lawyers "is average in the
district of Montreal for lawyers of that experience," he added.

Wilhelm Pellemans and Michel Vezina, the Norbourg investors who
were the named plaintiffs in the class-action suit, testified they
had no problem with the legal fees requested.

Mr. Pellemans said the settlement meant Norbourg investors -- who
had already received $32 million from the AMF indemnity fund and
$26 million from the liquidation of assets and Revenue Quebec
reimbursements -- would receive virtually all the $100-million-
plus they had invested, with no further wait, which was what most
wanted.

An earlier offer was refused last summer because it didn't meet
that condition, he said.

"Under the circumstances, the (January settlement) was
acceptable," he said.

But there were indications on March 14 it didn't please everyone
equally.

A group of 138 investors who sued the AMF separately after it
denied them compensation from its indemnity fund had convened to
pay their law firm, Gravel, Bernier, Vaillancourt, just over 6.5
per cent of any amount recovered.

They won their case in Superior Court in November, and were
awarded about $7 million by Judge Bernard Godbout, but the AMF
appealed.

Under the terms of the out-of-court settlement, the AMF will drop
its appeal and they'll be paid first and compensated in full for
the first $200,000 of their capital investment.

However, some reportedly aren't thrilled by the idea of paying the
lawyers 20% instead of less than 7%.

During the March 14 proceedings, it also was mentioned that the
AMF is contributing $150,000 toward their lawyers' legal fees, in
addition to the $20 million it's paying to the overall settlement.

Arguments in the case was set to resume on March 15.


OILSANDS QUEST: Faces Securities Class Suit From Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
Oilsands Quest Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit
from investors who purchased securities during the period from
August 14, 2006, and July 14, 2009, according to the Company's
March 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, a putative class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company
on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities
during the putative class period of August 14, 2006, and July 14,
2009.  The Complaint asserts two causes of action:  securities
fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and control person
liability for such fraud under Section 20(a) of the same act.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company (i) failed to properly account
for the Company's acquisition of an interest in OQI Sask in August
2006, (b) overstated the value of the Company's interest in OQI
Sask, and (iii) failed to have adequate internal financial
controls.  The Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  The Company
believes the claim is without merit.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Sued Over Unlawful Retention of Customer Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Redbox Automated Retail keeps customers' credit card information
and "viewing history" for extended periods, in violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Boesky v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-01729 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/15/Redbox.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  wgray@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


SCIQUEST INC: Appeals in Consolidated Suit Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving a settlement in the consolidated
lawsuit against SciQuest, Inc., in New York remain pending,
according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from the Company's December 1999 initial public offering.  The
complaints alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used
in the Company's December 1999 initial public offering contained
material misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters'
allocation practices and compensation and that the underwriters
manipulated the aftermarket for the Company's stock.  These
complaints were consolidated along with similar complaints filed
against over 300 other issuers in connection with their initial
public offerings.  After several years of litigation and appeals
related to the sufficiency of the pleadings and class
certification, the parties agreed to a settlement of the entire
litigation, which was approved by the Court on October 5, 2009.
Notices of appeal to the Court's order have been filed by various
appellants.

The Company says it has not incurred significant costs to date in
connection with its defense of these claims since this litigation
is covered by its insurance policy.  The Company believes it has
sufficient coverage under its insurance policy to cover its
obligations under the settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the
Company believes the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have an impact on its financial position and, therefore, the
Company has not accrued a contingent liability as of December 31,
2008, 2009 and 2010.


SECURITIES AMERICA: States Oppose Preliminary Injunction
--------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Securities regulators in Massachusetts and Montana asked a federal
court judge to deny a request for a preliminary injunction that
could halt their proceedings against Securities America Inc. and
other defendants.

The regulators argue in a joint brief that their states have
authority to regulate securities fraud independently of federal
law. William Galvin, secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and Monica Lindeen, Commissioner of Securities and
Insurance, Montana State Auditor, filed the brief on Monday in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Lawyers for the lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit against
Securities America, a unit of Ameriprise Financial Inc. (AMP)
suggested in February that a Dallas federal court stop, at least
temporarily, Massachusetts and Montana regulators from continuing
certain proceedings involving the brokerage's sales of private
placements, according to court documents.  Securities America
can't afford to pay the more than $300 million in investor claims,
they say.  According to them, investors should share equally in a
$21 million settlement fund.

A group of Securities America investors filed the class action in
2009. They want to establish a general fund for reimbursing losses
suffered by investors who purchased two private-placement
offerings by Provident Royalties LLC and Medical Capital Holdings
Inc.   A flood of securities arbitration cases against Securities
America allege the firm didn't conduct adequate due diligence of
the offerings.  The Securities and Exchange Commission brought
civil fraud charges against the two issuers in July 2009.

Massachusetts regulators charged Securities America in 2010 with
improper sales of notes issued by Medical Capital Holdings.

In August, Montana securities regulators filed a cease-and-desist
order against Securities America. They alleged that Securities
America and some of its executives "withheld material information
regarding the heightened risks" of private placements it sold that
were issued by Medical Capital.

The regulators, who aren't parties to the case, also say the
federal court doesn't have jurisdiction over their proceedings.

A national organization of state securities regulators also filed
a brief that raised concerns about the potential involvement of
federal courts in state securities cases.  "It will have a have a
chilling effect on all state securities regulators," wrote a
lawyer for the North American Securities Administrators
Association in Washington, D.C. State securities regulators, they
said, potentially face having their authority to police conduct
"impaired by defendants who would run to federal courts to plead
poverty."

A hearing in the class-action case is scheduled for March 18 in
Dallas.

A Securities America spokeswoman didn't return a call and email
requesting comment.


SEQUENOM INC: Appeals From Settlement in IPO Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement in the consolidated
securities litigation against Sequenom, Inc., remain pending,
according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (now
captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation) Case No.
01-CV-10831.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company's underwriters, certain of its officers and directors and
the Company violated the federal securities laws because its
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by and the stock allocation practices
of the underwriters.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. Similar complaints were filed in the
same District Court against hundreds of other public companies
that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in
the late 1990s and 2000 (the IPO Cases).

In October 2002, the Company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.  In February 2003, the
District Court dismissed the claim against the Company brought
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, without giving the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to that
claim.  The District Court declined to dismiss the claim against
the Company brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act).

In September 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of its board of directors, the Company
approved in principle a settlement offer by the plaintiffs.  In
September 2004, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  In February 2005, the District 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.
In August 2005, the District Court reaffirmed class certification
and preliminary approval of the modified settlement.  In December
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
District Court's decision certifying as class actions the six
lawsuits designated as "focus cases."  Thereafter the District
Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits
pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit
for rehearing en banc.  In April 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 and will not receive final
approval.

In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
District Court that a new settlement of all IPO Cases had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the District Court.  In
April 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement
to the District Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.
In June 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members.  In September 2009, the
District Court held a final fairness hearing.  In October 2009,
the District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case
and granted final approval to the settlement.  Thereafter, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class
Certification Order, asserting that the District Court's
certification of the settlement classes violates the Second
Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO Cases
and a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting
to final approval of the settlement.

The Company says that 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.


SEQUENOM INC: Issues 6.4 Million Shares to Class Action Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequenom, Inc., has issued to a plaintiffs' class 6,407,738 shares
of common stock, which were to be issued pursuant to a settlement
in a consolidated securities and shareholder litigation against
the Company, according to its March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In April 2009, the Company announced that the expected launch of a
test for trisomy 21 then under development by Sequenom CMM had
been delayed and that the Company was no longer relying on the
previously announced test data and results for that test, as a
result of inadequately substantiated claims, inconsistencies and
errors and inadequate protocols and controls, which included: the
mischaracterization of tests as having been conducted in a blinded
manner (i.e., that the tests had been performed by scientists who
did not know the true outcomes for the samples tested before the
test results had been determined); the improper unblinding of true
outcomes for samples being tested; the use of the unblinded true
outcomes to alter and improve reported test results; the
unsubstantiated reporting of test results for low-risk samples
(i.e., samples from expectant mothers who were less likely to be
carrying a fetus with trisomy 21) without knowing the true
outcomes for such samples; the failure to perform testing on those
low-risk samples; the inadequate storage of serum samples
resulting in breakdown of nucleic acids; and other improper
practices.

Following the April 2009 announcement, several complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock.  The complaints included claims
asserted under Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and were brought as
shareholder class actions.  In general, the complaints alleged
that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the test, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.  In September
2009 the complaints were consolidated under the caption In re
Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-
00921 LAB-WMC and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  In December
2009 the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement with the
lead plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiffs' class.  Pursuant to
the terms of the stipulation, the Company paid $14 million, which
was funded by insurance proceeds.  The Company also agreed to
issue to the plaintiffs' class approximately 6.8 million shares of
the Company's common stock, and to adopt or continue the Company's
implementation of changes and additions to certain corporate
governance policies, protocols and practices.  The court held a
final settlement approval hearing in May 2010, following which the
court approved the final settlement.  The time for appeals lapsed
without any appeal.

Of the 6.8 million shares of common stock to be issued in the
settlement, 409,005 shares were issued in June 2010 to counsel for
the plaintiffs' class in accordance with the stipulation of
settlement.  Following completion of the class action claim
procedures, the Company issued the balance of 6,407,738 shares as
of December 31, 2010.


SMITH & WESSON: Awaits Court Decision on Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation is awaiting hearing results of
its motion for summary disposition of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

The Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Securities Litigation is a
consolidation of three cases: William Hwang v. Smith & Wesson
Holding Corp., et al.; Joe Cranford v. Smith & Wesson Holding
Corp., et al.; and Joanne Trudelle v. Smith & Wesson Holding
Corp., et al.  It is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Springfield), and is a
purported securities class action lawsuit brought individually and
on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of the
Company between June 15, 2007, and December 6, 2007.  The putative
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages against the Company, certain
of its officers, and its directors for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed Lead
Plaintiff of the putative class.  On May 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiff
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeking unspecified damages
against the Company and several officers and directors for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On
August 28, 2008, the Company and the named officers and directors
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint because it
failed to state a claim under the federal securities laws and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The putative
class Lead Plaintiff submitted its Opposition to the Company's
motion on October 28, 2008.  On March 26, 2009, the Company's
motion was granted as to Mr. Monheit and denied as to the
remaining defendants.  On May 11, 2010, the court certified the
consolidated action as consisting of a class of persons who
purchased securities of the Company between June 15, 2007, and
December 6, 2007, and suffered damage as a result.  Court
scheduled discovery concerning the facts of this action ended on
May 28, 2010.  Examination of any experts put forth by the parties
ended on October 1, 2010.  On October 29, 2010, the Company moved
for summary disposition of the case.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the
motion on November 22, 2010, and cross-moved for partial summary
judgment.  A hearing of this matter was held for December 20,
2010.  No decision has been issued to date.  The February 7, 2011
trial date was cancelled pending a decision on the motion for
summary judgment.


SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., is awaiting a decision from the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on a motion to dismiss an appeal
from the order and final judgment resolving the 2001 IPO
Litigation, according to the Company's March 10, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2001, a purchaser of the Company's common stock filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its officers and
the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public
offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified monetary damages.  The
purchaser seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between the date of the IPO on May 24,
2000, and December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint, filed in April
2002, alleges that the Company's registration statement contained
false or misleading information or omitted to state material facts
concerning the alleged receipt of undisclosed compensation by the
underwriters and the existence of undisclosed arrangements between
the underwriters and certain purchasers to make additional
purchases in the after market.  The claims against the Company are
asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and against the individual defendants under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar
class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions
against the Company, have been transferred to a single federal
judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims
against many of the individual defendants, including the Company's
officers named in the complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the
District Court granted a portion of the motion to dismiss by
dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants
including the Company, but denied the remainder of the motion as
to the defendants.

In October 2004, the District Court certified the class in a case
against certain defendants.  On August 31, 2005, the District
Court approved the terms of the proposed settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the District Court's October 2004 order
certifying a class.  On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, approval of
the plan of distribution of the settlement fund and certification
of the settlement classes.  A settlement fairness hearing was held
on September 10, 2009.  On October 5, 2009, the District Court
issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of a new
settlement fund and certification of the settlement classes.  An
Order and Final Judgment was entered on January 14, 2010.

On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of
appeal filed a stipulation with the Second Circuit withdrawing
their appeals with prejudice, and one of the remaining objectors
filed a brief in support of his appeal.  On December 8, 2010,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one
of the two appellants based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record.  The
motion was fully briefed as of December 30, 2010, but the Second
Circuit has not yet ruled on the motion.  The filing of
plaintiffs' motion tolled the deadline for appellees to file
answering briefs on both appeals.  If the District Court's order
is upheld on appeal, the Company would have no material liability
in connection with this litigation, and this litigation would be
resolved.


STANDARD PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Chinese Drywall Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard Pacific Corp. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
arising from installation of certain Chinese drywall in the homes
that it constructed, according to the Company's March 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Like many other homebuilders, Standard Pacific Corp. has
determined that some of its subcontractors installed drywall
manufactured in China in the Company's homes.  Reports have
indicated that certain Chinese drywall, thought to be delivered to
the United States primarily during 2005 and 2006, may emit various
sulfur-based gases that, among other things, have the potential to
corrode non-ferrous metals (copper, silver, etc.).  The Company
has conducted an internal review in an attempt to determine how
many of the homes that it constructed may be impacted.  To date,
it appears that a subset of homes with drywall dates from February
2006 through February 2007 in five of the Company's Florida
communities contain some high-sulfur Chinese drywall.  The Company
has inspected all but about four of the homes that it believes are
likely to be impacted in these communities based on their location
and drywall installation dates.  Approximately 170 have been
confirmed (including 14 Company owned homes), and the Company is
still seeking access to the four remaining homes to complete its
investigation.

The Company has also received complaints from two other homeowners
outside of these five communities who have thus far refused to let
the Company inspect their homes.  If the Company were to locate
high sulfur drywall outside of these communities or drywall
installation dates, the Company would broaden the scope of its
investigation.  The Company has notified homeowners of the results
of its inspections, and have offered to make comprehensive
repairs, including removing and replacing all drywall and wiring.
The Company has entered into approximately 127 settlement
agreements to repair homes that it sold, and have commenced the
repair process on at least 140 homes, including those owned by the
Company.  The Company says it intends to continue to negotiate
additional settlements as it makes repairs and will work through
the group as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Although the Company is encouraging homeowners to allow it to make
repairs rather than engaging in litigation, approximately 77
homeowners have joined a federal class action lawsuit or filed
suit in state court, seeking property and, in some cases, bodily
injury damages.  Over 50 of these already have agreed to allow the
Company to make repairs.  The Company says it plans to vigorously
defend litigation involving Chinese drywall, while seeking to make
repairs wherever possible.


STATE AUTO: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Ohio Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a putative
class action lawsuit filed against it and other defendants in Ohio
remains pending, according to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2010, a putative class action lawsuit (Kelly vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against
State Auto Financial, State Auto P&C and State Auto Mutual in
state court in Ohio.  In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the
State Auto Group has engaged, and continues to engage, in
deceptive practices by failing to disclose to plaintiffs the
availability, through one or more related companies, of insurance
policies providing for identical coverage and service as those
policies purchased by plaintiffs but at a lower premium amount.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court and restitution
and/or disgorgement of profits derived from plaintiffs and the
alleged class.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 1, 2011, and it
remains pending.  The Company believes its practices with respect
to pricing, quoting and selling its insurance policies are in
compliance with all applicable laws, denies any and all liability
to plaintiffs or the alleged class, and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.


STERLING BANCSHARES: "Bailey" Suit Over Comerica Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of Sterling Bancshares, Inc., filed on
January 18, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the
Company's merger agreement with Comerica Incorporated in the 11th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, captioned Bailey v.
Sterling Bancshares, Inc. et al., Cause No. 201103205.

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on March 2, 2011,
the Company disclosed in its March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

Sterling Bancshares provides a broad array of financial services
to Texas businesses and consumers through 57 banking centers in
the greater metropolitan areas of Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and
Fort Worth, Texas.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Wash. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
Washington, according to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and certain of
its current and former officers.  The Court appointed a lead
plaintiff on March 8, 2010.  On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business and
financial results.  The complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent construction
loans, properly record losses for impaired loans, and properly
reserve for loan losses.  The complaint seeks, on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
from July 23, 2008, to October 15, 2009, damages of an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the complaint.  A
hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on March 2, 2011, and an
order has not yet been issued.  The Company says that failure to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on its business,
results of operations and financial condition.  Currently, a loss
resulting from these claims is not considered probable or
estimable in amount.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Hearing Set for March 22 in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2011, on the motion to
dismiss an ERISA class action litigation against Sterling
Financial Corporation and other defendants, according to the
Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and
Sterling Savings Bank, as well as certain of Sterling's current
and former officers and directors.  The two complaints were merged
in a Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 2010 in the
same court.  The Complaint does not name all of individuals named
in the prior complaints, but it is expected that additional
defendants will be added.  The Complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Sections 404 and
405 of ERISA, with respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee
Savings and Investment Plan and the FirstBank Northwest Employee
Stock Ownership Plan.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their duties by investing assets of the Plans in Sterling's
securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by investing such
assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew or should have
known that the price of those securities was inflated due to
misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's business
practices.  The business practices at issue include alleged over-
reliance on risky construction loans; alleged inadequate loan
reserves; alleged spiking increases in nonperforming assets,
nonperforming loans, classified assets, and 90+-day delinquent
loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising loan payment
shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking practices; and a
capital base that was allegedly inadequate to withstand the
significant deterioration in the real estate markets.  The
putative class periods are October 22, 2007, to the present for
the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007, to November 14, 2008,
for the ESOP class.  The Complaint seeks damages of an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for
March 22, 2011.  The Company says failure to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the Complaint could have a
material adverse effect on its business, results of operations,
and financial condition.  Currently, a loss resulting from these
claims is not considered probable or estimable in amount.


SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls 1,350 Suzuki QuadSport ATVs
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Suzuki Motor Corporation, announced a voluntary recall of about
1,350 Suzuki QuadSport ATVs.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

American Suzuki Motor Corp., of Brea, California; Montgomery
Motors Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii; Suzuki del Caribe Inc., of Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico

The regulator/rectifier circuit board can fail and cause the
engine to stall during riding due to an insufficient battery
charge, increasing the risk of a crash.

American Suzuki has received 11 reports of regulator/rectifier
failure.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall affects all 2009 LT-Z400 and LT-Z400Z QuadSport ATVs.
The words "QuadSport" and the model number are written on the
front left fender of the ATV.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11728.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
Suzuki ATV dealers nationwide from September 2008 through February
2011 for between $6,500 and $6,700.

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


SYNGENTA CROP: Witness Hearing in Atrazine Suit Moved to April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a hearing on when an expert witness from the University of
Chicago was retained by the defendant in a class action over the
weed killer atrazine has been moved for a second time.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge entered an order
on March 11 moving a March 18 evidentiary hearing on the role of
Don Coursey, a professor at the university, to 9:00 a.m. on
April 1.

Mr. Coursey's role as an expert witness for defendant Syngenta
Crop Protection Inc. has come into question recently as documents
released in discovery by the University of Chicago to plaintiff
Holiday Shores Sanitary District indicate that the professor was
not retained by Syngenta until three years after the company first
claimed he was hired.

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Tillery has asked for sanctions over
the matter, calling the difference in retention date "a cover-up."

Mr. Tillery also issued subpoenas that would have mandated the
appearance of defense attorneys Kurtis Reeg for Syngenta and Mary
Lamb for the University of Chicago, as well as third parties in
the suit, to appear with documents related to their communications
about Mr. Coursey.

Those subpoenaed called the February filings "an abuse of the
discovery process" and "harassment."

Holiday Shores proposes to lead a class of Illinois cities and
other water providers against Syngenta and the other makers of
atrazine.

The plaintiffs claim that the chemical, commonly used by farmers
to kill weeds, runs off fields into drinking water that the
plaintiffs must then remediate.

The 2004 suits have also spawned a 2010 federal class action led
by the City of Greenville, Ill. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

That suit is set for a settlement conference in April.

Judge Mudge had originally been set to hold the evidentiary
hearing on Mr. Coursey's retention date March 10. The parties then
continued that hearing to March 18 due to Mr. Coursey's teaching
schedule at the University of Chicago.

In Judge Mudge's March 11 order, the judge also found that some of
the documents requested by the Holiday Shores subpoenas must be
produced.

"Work product in Illinois is a narrow doctrine, protecting only
materials generated in preparation for litigation which reveal
mental impressions, opinions or trial strategy," Judge Mudge
wrote.

Judge Mudge ordered the defendants to produce documents requested
under the subpoenas that do not fall into that definition.

Judge Mudge went on to quash the orders that Reeg, Lamb and the
other attorneys subpoenaed appear and directed the parties to
continue discovery and attempts to resolve disputes.

Judge Mudge's order came on the same day as the University of
Chicago attorneys' moved to quash the subpoena.

Syngenta's attorneys had also moved to quash the subpoenas.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine suits are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: No Action in Locklear Suit Since '09
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that no action has taken place in more than two years in a Madison
County class action suit filed over faxed advertisements.

The last filings in the suit filed by plaintiff Locklear Electric
of Wood River against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic filed
occurred in June 2009.

Locklear sued the clinic over violations of federal law governing
faxed ads.  Locklear claims the unwanted faxes cost it and other
potential class members money in the form of ink and paper.

The suit is one of a number of faxed ad class actions Locklear has
filed in both Madison and St. Clair counties.

Locklear won a default judgment in a 2008 faxed ad suit it filed
against Christopher Parks and American Business Lending in
January.

Robert Sprague represents Locklear in the 2009 case.

Lanny Darr represents the company in the 2008 suit where Locklear
won the default judgment.

No attorneys are listed for the defendants in either suit.

Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth heads the Taylorville
case.

The 2008 class action filed against Parks and American Business
Lending is Madison case number 08-L-1131.

The 2009 class action against Taylorville Chiropractic is case
number 09-L-606.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Class Action Suits in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries Inc. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits in Louisiana, according to the Company's March 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2011.

The Company has been named in approximately 800 complaints, some
of which were originally styled as putative class actions (with
respect to which class certification was ultimately denied) and
some of which were filed by individual plaintiffs, filed against
manufacturers of travel trailers and manufactured homes supplied
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for use as emergency
living accommodations in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The complaints have been transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana by the federal panel on multidistrict litigation for
consideration in a matter captioned In re FEMA Trailer
Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation, Case Number MDL
07-1873, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. The complaints generally assert claims for damages (for
health related problems, medical expenses, emotional distress and
lost earnings) and for medical monitoring costs due to the
presence of formaldehyde in the units. Some of the lawsuits also
seek punitive and/or exemplary damages. Thus far, however, none of
the lawsuits allege a specific amount of damages sought and
instead make general allegations about the nature of the
plaintiffs' claims without placing a dollar figure on them. The
Company strongly disputes the allegations in these complaints, and
intends to vigorously defend itself in all such matters.


TOLL BROTHERS: Court Approves Settlement in Pennsylvania Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted final approval of the settlement agreement that Toll
Brothers, Inc., reached with the plaintiffs of a securities class
action lawsuit against it and its officers and directors,
according to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

On April 17, 2007, a securities class action suit was filed
against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of the purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between December 9, 2004, and November 8,
2005.  The original plaintiff has been replaced by two new lead
plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and
the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern California.  On
August 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed and the following
individual director and officer defendants were added to the suit:
Zvi Barzilay, Joel H. Rassman, Robert S. Blank, Richard J.
Braemer, Carl B. Marbach, Paul E. Shapiro and Joseph R. Sicree.
The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's stock.  They further allege that the individual
defendants sold shares for substantial gains during the class
period.  The purported class is seeking compensatory damages,
counsel fees, and expert costs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in July
2010, which was subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  In March 2011, the Court
issued an order granting final approval to the settlement reached
between the parties.  The entire settlement amount will be funded
by the Company's insurers.


TREX COMPANY: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Product Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit filed by Eric Ross, Bradley S. Hureth and
Mark Okano alleging defects in the Company's products, according
to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross
and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.  These
plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.  On February 13, 2009, the
Company removed this case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  On January 21, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law
firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano
and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain
product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company
has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products.
This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On
April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending
actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens
Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
this lawsuit.


TREX COMPANY: Faces Product Defects Class Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., is defending itself from a class action
lawsuit alleging product defects in Kentucky, according to the
Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP
on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs.
These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will
vigorously defend this lawsuit.


TRINITY CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Donation Tax Credits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all persons who participated in the Donation
Program for Medical Science and Technology offered by Trinity
Capital Corporation in at least one of the taxation years of 2001,
2002 or 2003.  The Program was marketed as a tax shelter that
permitted participants to make leveraged donations to charities.

The lawsuit alleges that donors who participated in the Program
used their own funds for a portion of the donation and were
provided with the option of financing for the balance.  Official
charitable donation income tax receipts were provided to each
donor for an amount that included the financed portion of the
donation.  Subsequently, the Tax Court of Canada disallowed the
income tax credits claimed by the donors.  As a result, the donors
lost tens of millions of dollars on account of disallowed income
tax credits and various other fees collected by some of the
defendants.

The plaintiff, who is represented by Sutts, Strosberg LLP and
Groia & Company Professional Corporation, alleges that the
defendants were negligent in designing, promoting, and operating
the Program.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP has recovered more than $1.5 billion for its
clients as a result of its involvement on the leadership teams of
many of the most important class proceedings in Canadian history.
Groia & Company Professional Corporation is experienced in class
actions and is one of Canada's leading boutique law firms focused
on litigation.

Please visit Sutts, Strosberg LLP's Web site --
http://www.strosbergco.com/-- Groia & Company Professional
Corporation's Web site -- http://www.groiaco.com/-- and the
Trinity Capital Corporation class action Web site
http://www.trinityclassaction.com/-- for more information the
Trinity Capital Corporation class action.

For further information:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          Telephone: (519) 561-6272
                     1-800-229-5323, ext. 8272
          E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Still Defends Dentist Association Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is still defending itself against
a purported class action lawsuit filed by the Puerto Rico Dentists
Association, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage. The Company and
two of its subsidiaries, TSS and TCI were included as defendants.
This litigation purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly situated; however, the
complaint does not include a single dentist as a class
representative nor a definition of the intended class.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits. The Corporation intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Corporation,
opposed. The federal district court in Florida decided that it
lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and
remanded the case to state court. The removing defendants
petitioned to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Having
accepted the appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order in late October 2009 which found the lower court's decision
premature. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the federal
district court in Puerto Rico (the DC) and allowed limited
discovery to determine whether the case should be heard in federal
court pursuant to CAFA. The parties completed the limited
discovery in August 2010 and supplemented their previous filings.

On February 8, 2011, the DC issued its Opinion and Order, denying
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because the
injuries alleged in the complaint could be suffered outside Puerto
Rico. It also decided to retain jurisdiction.

The Company plans to petition the DC to reconsider its ruling,
pointing to clear evidence that the removing defendants are not
primary defendants for purposes of CAFA and therefore, the case
should be heard in state court.


UNION FIRST: Class Suit Vs. Union Mortgage Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Union Mortgage Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Union
First Market Bankshares Corporation, continues to defend a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of mortgage laws, according to
Union First's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 2, 2009, Union Mortgage received notice that it has
been sued in Maryland state court in a class action lawsuit under
the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law.  In general, the lawsuit
alleges that Union Mortgage, in connection with making second
mortgage loans to customers, violated the SMLL by charging certain
fees, closing costs and interest in excess of the limitations
established by the SMLL.  The case was removed to federal court
and consolidated for certain pre-trial purposes with approximately
18 other cases brought under the SMLL by the same attorneys.
Union Mortgage is a defendant in only one of these cases.  On
April 23, 2010, Union Mortgage filed an answer and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to certain issues.  The motion
remains pending.

While Union Mortgage is contesting the lawsuit vigorously and
asserted a number of defenses, because of the nature of the
lawsuit, it cannot adequately assess the merits at this time.


UNITED STATES: Guatamelans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that American
scientists infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis in a
series of nonconsensual medical tests sanctioned by the U.S.
government, a class action filed on March 14 claims in Washington,
D.C.  Some experiments focused on orphaned children.

The government began conducting these experiments in Guatemala
beginning in 1946 despite growing contempt over similar practices
uncovered in Nazi concentration camps and on American soil,
according to the federal complaint.

During the 40 years that the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory
within the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted limited
experiments on black men already infected with syphilis in
Tuskegee, Ala., it also secretly infected humans.  The PHS set its
sights on Guatemala after unsuccessfully trying to infect
prisoners at a Terre Haute, Ind., federal penitentiary with
gonorrhea, according to the complaint.

"The medical team and U.S. entities took advantage of the fact
that ethical limitations in the United States were enforced, while
in Guatemala, they were not," according to the complaint.  "But,
as the parties involved fully recognized, these ethical
limitations were not unique to the United States, nor did they
apply only on U.S. soil; the ethical limitations were part of
international law and, as such, transcend any particular country
and apply to humans everywhere.  Nuremberg made abundantly clear
that all humans have the right to be free from nonconsensual
medical experimentation.  The medical team and U.S. entities
involved unquestionably violated that right by going to a country
where they were less likely to be caught or punished for engaging
in unethical practices.  Trying to escape the law by violating it
in a country known for weak enforcement is reprehensible."

Project leaders selected Guatemala because they carried
"racialized assumptions about syphilis . . . presuming that the
disease was more frequent in those of Latin descent than in
others," according to the complaint.

"From their offices in the United States, PHS and other U.S.
entities decided to seek a location where they would be able to
carry out more invasive methods of inoculation without ethical
scrutiny," the complaint states.  "This decision to move to
Guatemala was part of a deliberate plan to continue the Tuskegee
testing offshore, where it would not be subject to the same level
of oversight as in the United States."

Manuel Gudiel Garcia and six other named plaintiffs filed the suit
on behalf of thousands of Guatemalans affected by the
experimentation.  "The plaintiffs believe that there are thousands
of potential class members; the nonconsensual human medical
experimentation involved at least 700 test subjects and thousands
of others were impacted as a result of defendants' nonconsensual
human medical experimentation," according to the complaint.

The class claims that PHS performed the experimentation in
Guatemala to study the effects of penicillin treatments and the
most effective way to infect a person with the disease, "an
experiment that would not have been permitted in the United
States."

Though penicillin was being widely used in the post-World War II
era to cure syphilis, doctors hoped to discover something akin to
a morning-after cream that could be applied directly after
possible exposure.

The class claims that, between 1946 and 1948, Assistant Surgeon
General Dr. John Charles Cutler led the Guatemala project in
concert with Guatemalan officials and PHS-trained doctors.  It
remains uncertain whether the project actually ended in 1948 as
officially reported, according to the complaint.

In addition to systematically infecting soldiers, prisoners,
mental patients and prostitutes with the disease, the class says
PHS attempted to study the presumed Latino disposition to the
disease through experimentation on orphaned children.
"To test this, Dr. Cutler and his staff only worked with
Guatemalans who were syphilis-free when the human experimentation
began," according to the complaint.

In the first arm of the project, PHS used U.S. taxpayer dollars to
pay Guatemalan prostitutes infected with gonorrhea or syphilis to
have sex with inmates in the national penitentiary.  If a
prostitute was not infected, PHS doctors "placed an inoculum of
the diseases on their cervixes before the sexual visits,"
according to the complaint.

According to a document quoted in the class action, "a merry
twinkle came into [Surgeon General Thomas] Parran's eye" as
malaria specialist G. Robert Coatney, who had prison malaria
studies, visited the Guatemalan project in February 1947 and told
Parran back in the United States, "You know, we couldn't do such
an experiment in this country."

After PHS doctors exposed Guatemalans to the disease, they did
very little follow-up to ensure that their test subjects
recovered, according to the complaint.

Displeased with the low rates of infection in the prison project,
the doctors performed blood tests on orphaned children in attempt
to vindicate "racialized notions of medical science."

"The doctors and U.S. government entities performed invasive
testing of 438 orphaned Guatemalan children between the ages of
six and sixteen using blood tests to discover why many of the
uninfected men in the prison study had falsely tested positive for
venereal disease," the class claims.

Other orphans are thought to have been infected by the PHS,
according to the complaint, although such details are not
discussed in publicly available reports.

Then the PHS doctors turned to mental patients, whom they
inoculated by "scraping the head of the patient's penis with a
hypodermic needle and then introducing directly to the raw skin
liquid bacteria cultured from the open genital sores of other
Guatemalan men."

Such methods were "both unprecedented and unequivocally
impermissible in the United States and throughout the civilized
world."

Female mental patients were also infected through their arms,
faces or mouths because "it was frowned upon in Guatemala for men,
even physicians, to view a female body."

PHS bribed their way into the national orphanage and mental
institution by providing the staffs with cigarettes and medication
that was in scarce supply, such as malaria treatments.

"Worse still, most of the officials at the mental asylum thought
at first that 'inoculation' was just another type of drug, not
actively being affected," the class claims.
Dr. Cutler, the assistant surgeon general, allegedly targeted the
next group of Guatemalans, soldiers who could give consent, after
his supervisor raised ethical issues over testing prisoners,
mental patients and children.  To infect soldiers the PHS used
prostitutes, as with the prisoners, and used penis injections.

The Guatemala experimentation was brought to light by Professor
Susan Reverby, a medical historian with Wellesley College.
President Barack Obama and two Cabinet secretaries apologized to
the Guatemalan government and people in October 2010.  A month
later, the government convened a panel to investigate the
activities of the PHS and the Institute of Medicine, part of the
National Academy of Sciences, convened its own investigative
committee.

Represented by Terrence Collingsworth with Conrad & Scherer, the
class seeks damages and injunctive relief from nine government
officials, including U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

A copy of the Complaint in Garcia, et al. v. Sebelius, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00527 (D.D.C.) (Walton, J.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.
          CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP
          1156 15th Street NW, Suite 502
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 543-4001
          E-mail: tcollingsworth@conradscherer.com

               - and -

          Andres Alonso, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 446-6500
          E-mail: aalonson@yourlawyer.com


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Defends Class Suits Over Emergent Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Since February 22, 2011, three putative shareholder class action
complaints, challenging the transactions contemplated by a
February 6, 2011, merger agreement among Universal Hospital
Services, Inc., its subsidiary Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc., and
Emergent Group Inc., were filed on behalf of three separate
plaintiffs in the Superior Court of the State of California in the
County of Los Angeles, according to the Company's March 9, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The complaints name the Company, Emergent Group, Sunrise Merger
Sub and the individual members of the Emergent Group Board.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that the members of the
Emergent Group Board breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
public shareholders of Emergent Group by attempting to sell
Emergent Group by means of an unfair process with preclusive deal
protection devices at an unfair price of $8.46 in cash per Share
and by entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the Offer and
the proposed Merger, engaging in self dealing and failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Emergent Group to its public
shareholders.  The complaints further allege that Emergent Group,
the Company, and Sunrise Merger Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the complaints allege
that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict
Emergent Group's ability to negotiate with rival bidders.  The
complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive
relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger and
other forms of equitable relief.  Beginning on March 8, 2011, the
plaintiffs in these lawsuits filed an application to compel
expedited discovery.  Management believes that any such resolution
would not have a material adverse effect on the financial
position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

Universal Hospital is a provider of medical equipment management
and service solutions to the health care industry.


VALHI INC: NL Unit Still Defends Suits Over Former Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc. is still defending
itself against class action lawsuits related to its former
operations, according to the Company's March 9, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

NL's former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments
for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other former
manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint and the Lead Industries Association, which discontinued
business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in
various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury,
property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by
the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of these actions have been
filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have
been asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery
under a variety of theories, including public and private
nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn,
strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of
action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or
risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  In addition, various other cases are pending (in
which the company is not a defendant) seeking recovery for injury
allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.  The
Company said that although it is not a defendant in these cases,
the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that
might be filed against the Company in the future.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and
intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  The
Company says it does not believe it is probable that it has
incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment
litigation cases to which the Company is a party, and liability to
it that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably
estimated, because:

   * it has never settled any of the market share, risk
     contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier
     negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy,
     misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability,
     or statutory cases,

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against the Company, and

   * it has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any
     such litigation matters.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed, with prejudice, the consolidated shareholder
securities class actions against VeriFone Systems, Inc., and
certain of its officers, according to the Company's March 8, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class action claims
were filed against the company and certain of its officers, former
officers, and a former director.  The lawsuits were consolidated
as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
MHP.

The original actions were:

     -- Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6140 MHP;

     -- Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW;

     -- Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
        complaint on March 7, 2008);

     -- Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6218 MMC;

     -- Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;

     -- Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings,
        Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC;

     -- Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP;

     -- Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;

     -- Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator
Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff
filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on Oct. 31,
2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person
liability against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding its business and operations during the
putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 31, 2008.  The court
granted that motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.  Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 2009, followed by a second
amended complaint filed on Jan. 19, 2010.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on that motion was held on May 17, 2010.

In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
The Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is
currently due on Nov. 5, 2010, and a hearing on the company's
motion is set for Feb. 28, 2011.

Although discovery has not yet commenced in this action, on
Nov. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to partially lift the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act discovery stay in order
to obtain documents produced by the company to the SEC in
connection with the SEC's investigation into the restatement of
the Company's fiscal year 2007 interim financial statements.  The
company filed its opposition to this motion in January 2010 and at
a hearing in February 2010 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to lift the discovery stay.

On March 8, 2011, the Company received notice that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed, with prejudice, the consolidated Securities Litigation.
Since the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, plaintiffs will
not be able to amend and re-file their complaint.  Plaintiffs have
the right to appeal the court's order.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VERTRO INC: Appeal From Final Judgment in Fla. Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final judgment in favor of Vertro, Inc., and
other defendants in a securities fraud class action lawsuit in
Florida remains pending, according to the Company's March 9, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2005, a securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA
Inc.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief
alleging generally that, during the putative class period, the
Company made certain misleading statements and omitted material
information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  The Plaintiffs have filed
an appeal of the summary judgment ruling.  Oral argument of the
appeal was held on November 17, 2010.

The Company says that if it is determined that it or its officers
or directors have engaged in the types of activities alleged by
these plaintiffs, the Company and its officers and directors could
be subject to damages and may be subject to further prosecution.
Regardless of the outcome, the Company says these litigations
could have a material adverse impact on it because of defense
costs, diversion of management's attention and resources, and
other factors.


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Kennedy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01222 (N.D.
Calif. March 11, 2011), seeks monetary damages, restitution,
punitive damages, and injunctive relief against Wells Fargo,
arising from Wells Fargo's unfair and unlawful assessment and
collection of excessive overdraft fees, in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq., and False Advertising Law, Business &
Professions Code section 17500, et seq.

Alicia Kennedy is a resident and citizen of the County of
Riverside, California, and a Wells Fargo account holder.  She
entered into her contractual relationship with Wells Fargo in the
County of Riverside, California, and her account is currently
maintained at a Riverside County Wells Fargo branch office.

Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company providing
banking, insurance, investments, mortgage banking and consumer
finance to individuals, businesses and institutions in all
counties within the State of California as well as in most other
states, and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Ms. Kennedy says that in California alone, Wells Fargo assessed
over $1.4 billion in overdraft fees between 2005 and 2007.  Wells
Fargo was able to accomplish this enormous revenue and profit from
overdraft fees through its development and uniform use of a
bookkeeping device, whereby the Bank posts customers' debit
transactions each day from highest to lowest in dollar amount,
which can turn what would ordinarily be one overdraft into as many
as ten overdrafts, thereby dramatically multiplying the number
of overdraft fees the Bank can extract from a single mistake by a
customer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN. LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  msobol@lchb.com
                  rheller@lhb.com
                  jelias@lchb.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq. (CA Bar No. 132124)
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          McCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com


XETA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 3 Suits Over Proposed Merger With PAETEC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XETA Technologies, Inc., faces three putative stockholder class
action complaints in Oklahoma arising from its proposed merger
with PAETEC Holding Corp., according to the Company's March 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On February 14 and 16, 2011, three separate putative stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the District Court of Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, and PAETEC Holding Corp. and its indirect
subsidiary Hera Corporation.  The lawsuits concern the proposed
merger between the Company and PAETEC, and generally assert claims
alleging, among other things, that each member of the Company's
board of directors breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the terms of the merger and by allegedly failing to provide
stockholders with material information related to the proposed
merger; and that PAETEC and Hera aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's board
of directors.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, class action
certification and monetary and injunctive relief.

The Company believes that all claims asserted in the lawsuits are
without merit and are merely opportunistic.


ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Still in Prelim. Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws filed
against Zale Corporation have been consolidated into one case, and
is still in its preliminary stage, according to the Company's
March 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

In November 2009, the Company and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  The suits alleged various violations of
securities laws arising from the financial statement errors that
led to the restatement completed by the Company as part of its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2009.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were consolidated into
one.  The consolidated lawsuit requests unspecified damages and
costs.  The lawsuit is in the preliminary stage and the Company
intends to vigorously contest it.

Zale Corporation -- http://www.zalecorp.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of diamonds and other jewelry products in North America,
operating approximately 1,900 retail locations throughout the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, as well as online.  Zale
Corporation's brands include Zales Jewelers, Zales Outlet,
Gordon's Jewelers, Peoples Jewellers, Mappins Jewellers and
Piercing Pagoda.  Zale also operates online at
http://www.zales.com/, http://www.zalesoutlet.com/and
http://www.gordonsjewelers.com/


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConocoPhillips Posts $8.776BB ARO at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips recorded asset retirement obligations of US$8.776
billion at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$8.295 billion at
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2011.

The Company has numerous asset removal obligations that it is
required to perform under law or contract once an asset is
permanently taken out of service.  Most of these obligations are
not expected to be paid until several years, or decades, in the
future and will be funded from general company resources at the
time of removal.

The Company's largest individual obligations involve removal and
disposal of offshore oil and gas platforms around the world, oil
and gas production facilities and pipelines in Alaska, and
asbestos abatement at refineries.

ConocoPhillips is an international, integrated energy company.
Its business is organized into six operating segments: Exploration
and Production, Midstream, Refining and Marketing, LUKOIL
Investment, Chemicals and Emerging Businesses.  The Company is
based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consumers Has $40MM Dec. 31 Abatement Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Consumers Energy Company,
recorded an asset retirement obligation for asbestos abatement of
US$40 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$38 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

CMS Energy Corporation is the parent holding company of several
subsidiaries, including Consumers Energy Company, an electric and
gas utility, and CMS Enterprises, primarily a domestic IPP.  The
Company is based in Jackson, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westar Energy Records $125.99MM ARO at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. record an asbestos retirement obligation of
US$125,999,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$119,519,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company initially recorded AROs at fair value for the
estimated cost to decommission Wolf Creek (KGE's 47% share),
retire its wind generating facilities, dispose of asbestos
insulating material at its power plants, remediate ash disposal
ponds and dispose of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated
oil.

Westar Energy, Inc. supplies electric energy at retail to about
369,000 customers in central and northeast Kansas and Kansas Gas
and Electric Company (KGE) supplies electric energy at retail to
about 318,000 customers in south-central and southeastern Kansas.
The Company is based in Topeka, Kans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,575 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 103,575 open claims as of Dec. 31, 2010 against ITT
Corporation filed in various state and federal courts alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, compared with 104,679
open claims as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company (including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc.) has been
joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.

These claims allege that certain products sold by the Company or
its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may have
contained asbestos.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 5,865 new claims, 991
settlements, 6,469 dismissals and 491 adjustments.  As of Dec. 31,
2009, the Company recorded 4,274 new claims, 1,081 settlements,
4,728 dismissals and 3,208 adjustments.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any Company or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, in
a large majority of the 103,575 pending claims against the
Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury.
Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets
(including 39,985 claims in Mississippi).

The average cost per claim resolved in 2010 and 2009 was US$16,000
and US$12,000, respectively.

ITT Corporation is a global multi-industry high-technology
engineering and manufacturing organization with about 40,000
employees operations in more than 60 countries.  Its products and
services provide solutions in three vital markets: global defense
and security, water and fluids management, and motion and flow
control.  The Company is based in White Plains, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A. O. Smith Still Involved in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
A. O. Smith Corporation is involved in various unresolved legal
actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the ordinary
course of its business involving product liability, property
damage, insurance coverage, exposure to asbestos and other
substances, patents and environmental matters, including the
disposal of hazardous waste.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 24, 2011.

A. O. Smith Corporation manufactures water heating equipment,
serving a diverse mix of residential and commercial end markets
principally in the United States with a growing international
presence.  Its company is comprised of one reporting segment:
Water Products.  The Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $6.8MM Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos reserves, net of
reinsurance and excluding pools, amounted to US$6.8 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$6.5 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s primary business operations
include insurance products and services in three property and
casualty operating segments.  These segments are Commercial Lines,
Personal Lines, and Other Property and Casualty.  The Company is
based in Worcester, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Records $1.1BB Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's net asbestos claims reserves amounted
to US$1.1 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with US$1.180 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Gross asbestos claims reserves were US$1.655 billion during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.780 billion during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 788 new
claims, 619 total claims closed, 8,421 pending claims and 336
claims closed without payment.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, the Company recorded 814 new claims, 1,342 total claims
closed, 8,252 pending claims and 469 claims closed without
payment.

The Allstate Corporation's business is conducted principally
through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance
Company and their affiliates.  The Company is primarily engaged in
the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
Company is based in Northbrook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $18.1MM Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation's consolidated balance sheets included
liabilities for asbestos legal actions of US$18.1 million at
Dec. 31, 2010 and US$15.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities.

These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation.  Based on the Company's analysis, and considering
the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, the Company
does not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal
actions will materially adversely affect its financial statements
or results of operations in the near term.

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester.  Chlor Alkali
Products manufactures and sells chlorine and caustic soda, sodium
hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide.  Winchester products include sporting
ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.  The Company
is based in Clayton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,316 Injury Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 19,316 pending asbestos personal injury claims
filed against Harsco Corporation, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 24, 2011.

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from
exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In
their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the individual
plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.

Of the pending 19,316 cases, 18,813 are pending in the New York
Supreme Court for New York County in New York State.  The other
claims, totaling 503, are filed in various counties in a number of
state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including
New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 25,370 cases.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has been listed as a defendant in
832 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products.  The Company's
operations fall into four reportable segments: Harsco
Infrastructure, Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco
Industrial.  The Company is based in Camp Hill, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Integrys Asset Retirement Obligation at $320.9MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrys Energy Group, Inc.'s asset retirement obligations
amounted to US$320.9 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$195.1 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The utility segments have AROs primarily related to removal of
natural gas distribution pipe (including asbestos and PCBs);
asbestos abatement at certain generation facilities, office
buildings, and service centers; dismantling wind generation
projects; disposal of PCB-contaminated transformers; and closure
of fly-ash landfills at certain generation facilities.

Integrys Energy Group, Inc. is an energy holding company that owns
six regulated utilities: Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation,
Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation, North Shore Gas Company,
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, Wisconsin Public Service, and
Upper Peninsula Power.  The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Records $43.5MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. recorded asbestos liabilities of US$43.5
million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$45 million at Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011.

The related asbestos insurance receivable was US$23.8 million at
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$26.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in
the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos.  The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned or from products that the Company
formerly manufactured for specialized applications.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 100
claimants associated with claims closed, 100 claimants associated
with claims opened, and 8,000 pending claims.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200 claimants associated
with claims closed, 100 claimants associated with claims opened,
and 8,000 pending claims.

Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty chemicals and
materials firm focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products.  Its products serve a diverse range of end
markets including aerospace composites, structural adhesives,
automotive and industrial coatings, electronics, inks, mining and
plastics.  The Company is based in Woodland Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin Public Posts $18.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation recorded asset retirement
obligations of US$18.8 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$17.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 24, 2011.

The Company has asset retirement obligations primarily related to
asbestos abatement at certain generation facilities, office
buildings, and service centers; dismantling wind generation
projects; disposal of PCB-contaminated transformers; and closure
of fly-ash landfills at certain generation facilities.

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation is a regulated electric and
natural gas utility serving about 11,000 square mile service
territory in northeastern Wisconsin and an adjacent portion of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula.  The Company is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Integrys Energy Group, Inc.  The Company is based in
Green Bay, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., including its subsidiaries, is a defendant, along
with many other companies, in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011.

Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were
acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously owned
businesses of the Company which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new
owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed to
indemnify the Company against these claims (Indemnified Claims).
The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such sellers and new owners.

These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the future;
however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation
in 2007.

To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a
result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

AMETEK, Inc. is a global manufacturer of electronic instruments
and electromechanical devices with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and South America.  The Company is based in Berwyn,
Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Subject to Exposure Actions in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries, since 2004,
have been subject to three multi-party lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and
Jasper County (First Judicial District), Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily
under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the
period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.  As a
result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.

Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi
state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a
result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company.  While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2011, none of the cases
pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases.

The three cases removed from state court have been assigned to the
Multi-District Litigation 875, which is currently before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Although
actions were taken by the plaintiffs in these three cases to bring
the cases back to Mississippi state court, the U.S. District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion by order dated Dec. 10, 2009.

The Company was recently notified that the Houston firm
representing the plaintiffs in all 65 claims had dissolved
effective as of Nov. 30, 2010.  Currently, the plaintiffs are
represented by local Mississippi counsel, and the Company expects
that additional counsel located in Tyler, Tex., will be entering
as counsel of record.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
two other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in other jurisdictions.

Ensco plc is a global offshore contract drilling company.  As of
Feb. 15, 2011, its offshore rig fleet included 40 jackup rigs,
five ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rigs and one barge rig.
Additionally, the Company has three ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible rigs and two ultra-high specification harsh
environment jackup rigs under construction.  The Company is based
in London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concept Roofing Penalized for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd, a Hampshire, England-
based roofing company, was fined for asbestos-related safety
violations, according to a Health and Safety Executive press
release dated March 2, 2011.

Concept Roofing spread asbestos fibers around a Leicestershire
town when using pressurized water washers to clean roof panels on
industrial units.

The Company was contracted to carry out repairs to a dozen
industrial units in Bath Street, Market Harborough, between
December 2008 and January 2009.

Leicester Magistrates' Court heard the problem was discovered when
asbestos was found outside the units by a Leicestershire County
Council health and safety consultant on Jan. 22, 2011.

The HSE, which brought the prosecution, told Leicester
Magistrates' Court that the Company used pressure washers to clean
asbestos cement roofing panels, which blasted the harmful material
into the environment.

When it became apparent what was happening, work was stopped
immediately and local traders had to close for several months
while a qualified asbestos removal company carried out a safe
program of removal causing major disruption in the town.  During
the subsequent clean-up operation, traces of the material were
found on walls, in drains and at a bus stop.

Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd pleaded guilty to
breaching Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006 and was yesterday fined GBP12,000.  The Company was also
ordered to pay costs of GBP22,375

HSE inspector Stephen Farthing said, "This company showed a
willful disregard for the safety of its employees and the general
public.  Concept Roofing and Cladding knew the roofing panels
contained asbestos and should have known that the use of a
pressure washer was entirely inappropriate.

"The actions of this company caused a great deal of worry and
inconvenience for local people and business, some of whom had to
leave their premises for a considerable amount of time.

"Yet the distress, inconvenience and cost of remedial action could
have been easily avoided had the company taken sensible steps to
ensure the right tools were used and the spread of potentially
dangerous material was prevented."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 82 Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Belden at Feb. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. is party to 82 asbestos-related personal injury cases
as of Feb. 7, 2011, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.  Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products
more than 20 years ago.

Through Feb. 7, 2011, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with only a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets cable,
connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics.  The
Company focuses on market segments that require highly
differentiated, high-performance products.  The Company is based
in St. Louis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Involved in 126 Pending Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in about 126 pending
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

In addition, to date, the Company has secured dismissals with
prejudice and without prejudice in about 157 and 207 lawsuits,
respectively, and is currently in discussions for similar
dismissal of several other lawsuits, and have not been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation provides highly engineered,
technologically advanced products and services.  It designs and
manufactures highly engineered, advanced technologies that perform
critical functions in demanding conditions in the defense, power
generation, oil and gas, commercial aerospace, and general
industrial markets.  The Company is based in Parsippany, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $11.3M Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's asbestos-related reserves amounted to
US$11.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$15.1 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25,
2011.

Subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's (AIHL) reserves for
loss and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) include amounts for
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance of certain general liability and commercial multiple
peril coverages assumed by Capitol Indemnity between 1969 and
1976.  Capitol Indemnity exited this business in 1976.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the reserves for asbestos liabilities were about
13 times the average paid claims for the prior three year period,
compared with 18 times at Dec. 31, 2009.

Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property and casualty and
surety insurance business.  The Company also owns and manages
properties in Sacramento, Calif. through its subsidiary Alleghany
Properties.  The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phelps Dodge Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s subsidiary, Phelps Dodge
Corporation, and various subsidiaries, since about 1990, have been
named as defendants in asbestos lawsuits, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

These lawsuits claim personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in electrical wire products produced or
marketed many years ago, either from asbestos contained in
buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated
by Phelps Dodge affiliates, or from alleged asbestos in talc
products.

Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants.

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. is a copper, gold and
molybdenum mining company.  At Dec. 31, 2010, consolidated
recoverable proven and probable reserves totaled 120.5 billion
pounds of copper, 35.5 million ounces of gold, 3.39 billion pounds
of molybdenum, 325 million ounces of silver and 0.75 billion
pounds of cobalt.  The Company is based in Phoenix.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation says various asbestos-related personal injury
claims have been filed in U.S. state and federal courts against
Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other affiliates of the Company
in connection with alleged exposure by people to products or
premises containing asbestos.

As of Dec. 31, 2010 the Company had a provision of US$107 million
for environmental expenditures, including certain asset retirement
obligations (such as for land fill capping and asbestos removal)
(US$111 million as of Dec. 31, 2009).

Domtar Corporation is the largest integrated manufacturer and
marketer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America and the
second largest in the world based on production capacity.  The
Company also manufactures papergrade, fluff and specialty pulp.
The Company is based in Montreal, Quebec.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Posts $631MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation's asbestos-related net loss reserves
amounted to US$631 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$689 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos-related gross loss reserves amounted to US$658 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$728 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Chubb Corporation is a holding company for a family of
property and casualty insurance companies known informally as the
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group).  Since 1882,
the P&C Group has provided property and casualty insurance to
businesses and individuals around the world.  The Company is based
in Warren, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions
which arise in the normal course of its business, the most
prevalent of which relate to product liability (including asbestos
related liability), retail credit, software licensing, patent and
trademark matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Deere & Company makes farm equipment and produces construction,
forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment.  The
Company operates through three business segments: Agriculture &
Turf and Construction & Forestry make up its Equipment Operations;
the Credit division is part of Financial Services.  The Company is
based in Moline, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Subject to 52,220 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation faced about 52,220 pending asbestos claims as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with about 62,360 as of Dec. 31, 2009 and
68,520 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 25, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

During 2010, the Company received about 5,170 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket about 15,310 claims.  The
Company's total costs for the years 2010 and 2009 for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net
of tax benefits were about US$13.7 million and US$17.8 million,
respectively.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company with operations in the
following segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing,
Local Broadcasting, and Outdoor.  The Company is based in New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Burik Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says plaintiff's response to defendants'
dismissal motion in an asbestos case styled Burik, et al. v. John
Crane-Houdaille, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000429, Circuit
Court, Md., Baltimore City, is still pending.

In the case filed June 9, 2010, plaintiff is suing individually
and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased smoker.
Plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to decedent by exposure
to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,
including Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants, including Liggett, filed a motion to dismiss in
July 2010.  Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss on July 29, 2010.  The motion is pending.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its New Valley
LLC subsidiary, which seeks to acquire additional operating
companies and real estate properties.  The Company is based in
Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Joins Motion to Dismiss Kraska Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, on Oct. 8,
2010, joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss an
asbestos action styled Kraska, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille,
Inc. et al., Case No. 24X08000209, Circuit Court, Md., Baltimore
City.

The motion is pending.

In the case filed on Aug. 2, 2010, Plaintiff is suing individually
and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased smoker.

Plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to decedent by exposure
to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,
including Liggett.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its New Valley
LLC subsidiary, which seeks to acquire additional operating
companies and real estate properties.  The Company is based in
Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Love Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says plaintiff's response to defendants'
dismissal motion in an asbestos case styled Love, et al. v. John
Crane-Houdaille, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000120, Circuit
Court, Md., Baltimore City, is pending.

In the case filed on June 1, 2010, Plaintiff and his wife seek
damages allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes,
with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and
certain tobacco company defendants, including Company unite
Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in July 2010.  Plaintiffs
filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on July 29,
2010.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its New Valley
LLC subsidiary, which seeks to acquire additional operating
companies and real estate properties.  The Company is based in
Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Response to Dismissal Bid in Schoppert Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says plaintiff's response to defendants'
dismissal motion in an asbestos case styled Schoppert, et al., v.
John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-07-000300,
Circuit Court, Md., Baltimore City, is pending.

In the case filed on Feb. 19, 2010, Plaintiffs (who are husband
and wife) seek damages allegedly caused to Leon D. Schoppert by
exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoke, with claims against
certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco
company defendants, including Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
Aug. 18, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a response to Liggett's Motion to
Dismiss on Aug. 20, 2010.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its New Valley
LLC subsidiary, which seeks to acquire additional operating
companies and real estate properties.  The Company is based in
Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action v. Vector Group Pending in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group, Ltd. continues to be party to an asbestos complaint
styled Parsons, et al. v. A C & S Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388,
Circuit Court, W.Va., Kanawha County.

This personal injury class action, filed on April 9, 1998, is
brought on behalf of plaintiff's decedent and all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.

The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy
petitions filed by three defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its New Valley
LLC subsidiary, which seeks to acquire additional operating
companies and real estate properties.  The Company is based in
Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 29,035 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, was a defendant in
29,035 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 25, 2011.

The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for about
20 years.  Of the pending cases at Dec. 31, 2010, about 28,438 of
these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a
single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) and seek unspecified damages.

Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly
worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related
injuries from products that the Company ceased manufacturing in
the mid-1970s.  The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (District Court) by reason of a transfer by the
judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket.  To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that
the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos-related
injury, but also must produce specific product identification
evidence to proceed against an individual defendant.  During 2010,
the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants
against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases.  The
Company was not named as a defendant against whom the plaintiffs
intended to proceed.

For cases outside the MDL as of Dec. 31, 2010, plaintiffs have
asserted monetary damages in about 246 cases.  In 112 of these
cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar
amount (about US$230,000 per plaintiff); in these cases there are
no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any
defendant.

In 132 other cases pending in state and federal district courts
(outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek about US$277 million in damages
from as many as 110 defendants.  In two cases, plaintiffs have
asserted damages related to the Company in the amount of US$11
million.  In addition, in relation to these 246 cases, there are
claims of US$110 million in punitive damages from all of the
defendants.  However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege
non-malignant injuries.

The Company has about 20 years of experience in this litigation,
and has, to date, resolved the claims of about 11,414 plaintiffs.
The cumulative average settlement through Dec. 31, 2010 has been
about US$614 per case.

However, the average settlements paid to resolve litigation in
2010 and 2009 have increased significantly above that amount as
the mix of cases currently being listed for trial in state courts
and those which may be listed in the future, which may need to be
resolved, involve more serious asbestos related injuries.

As of Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had accrued on its
balance sheet, on a gross basis, a liability of US$5.1 million for
asbestos-related claims and had recorded insurance recoveries of
about US$500,000.  The net amount of US$4.6 million as of Dec. 31,
2010 and 2009 represents the Company's best estimate in order to
cover resolution of future asbestos-related claims.

General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets
and distributes copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable
products for the energy, industrial, specialty and communications
markets.  The Company is based in Highland Heights, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind. Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and/or one of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants, along with many other companies, in asbestos-related
personal injury or wrongful death actions, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Roper Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes
medical and scientific imaging products and software, energy
systems and controls, industrial technology products and radio
frequency (RF) products and services.  The Company is based in
Sarasota, Fla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Council Fined for Breaches at Depot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council of Nottingham, England, has been fined GBP30,000
for failing to manage the risk of asbestos after around 150 people
were exposed to the potentially lethal material at one of its
depots, according to a Health and Safety Press release dated
Feb. 28, 2011.

The HSE prosecuted the Council after a visiting contractor spotted
debris on the floor of a building at the Woolsthorpe depot in
Bilborough and suspected it may be asbestos-containing material.

When the discovery was made on May 23, 2009, the building was
occupied by the Council's Street Scene team, part of the Council's
neighborhood services section responsible for maintaining and
improving the City's environment.  The building was used for
offices, garages, a mess room and storage.

The HSE investigation found that when the City Council purchased
the depot in February 2005, an asbestos survey was carried out and
the majority of the asbestos removed.  However, due to the design
of the building there was no guarantee that all the asbestos had
been removed particularly, from joints in the roof.  The Council
took the decision to contain any remaining asbestos in the
building by painting the affected areas.

The specialist company that managed the asbestos removal gave the
City Council a plan which told them where any remaining asbestos
was located and how to manage its condition.  The City Council
failed to follow this plan.

Health and safety inspections of the depot took place but these
did not identify that the City Council's own policies on the
management of asbestos had not been implemented.  This included
failing to identify that Street Scene's management had not been
properly trained in these policies.

The HSE's investigation found that for more than four years during
which the asbestos deteriorated, the Council did nothing to
prevent the exposure to asbestos of those working in, or visiting,
the building.

HSE principal inspector Frank Lomas said, "The latest health and
safety statistics show that more people are dying as a result of
asbestos related diseases than are killed in accidents at work.
This situation will not change unless organizations take their
duty to manage asbestos seriously.

"The Council failed to identify that its own asbestos policy had
not been implemented at the depot.  It's all well and good having
policies in place but they are meaningless unless they are put
into practice and in this case, around 150 people were needlessly
exposed to a potentially fatal substance."

Nottingham City Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation
4(10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation
5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
1999.

On Feb. 28, 2011, Nottingham magistrates fined the Council
GBP15,000 for each offense and ordered them to pay costs of
GBP12,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shengxuan Company Penalized for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shengxuan Company Ltd, a refurbishment company, has been fined
after workers and the public were exposed to asbestos in a village
in Leicestershire, England, according to a Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) press release dated March 8, 2011.

Shengxuan Company was converting a shop in Borough Street, Castle
Donington, into a restaurant on June 16, 2010.  Part of the work
involved converting an integral garage into a storeroom but in
doing so, workers disturbed asbestos-containing materials.  This
was then put in a skip by the workers, who were unaware of its
presence or its risks.

A member of the public with experience in the asbestos industry
walked past the site, saw what was in the skip, and reported it to
the HSE.  Other debris was also seen on the floor between the skip
and the garage.

The HSE's subsequent investigation found the firm had not made its
workers aware of the dangers of asbestos and had not given them
any training in how to recognize or deal with it.  A prohibition
notice was served, stopping all work until the problem was
rectified.

HSE inspector Sam Russell said, "The Company had a duty to protect
its employees and the public from exposure to asbestos, yet failed
in that duty.  Before starting work, the Company should have
carried out a survey to ascertain if asbestos was present and then
arranged for it to be removed safely by a licensed company.  By
failing to do that, they put people's health at risk by
contaminating a public area with asbestos.

"The latest health and safety statistics show that more people are
dying as a result of asbestos related diseases than are killed in
accidents at work.  This situation will not change unless
organizations take their duty to manage asbestos seriously."

Shengxuan Company Ltd, of Fordham Grove, Pendeford, Wolverhampton,
pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 11(1)(a) and 16 of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP4,000 by
Loughborough magistrates.  The Company was also ordered to pay
full costs of GBP2,100.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GSA, Four Firms Fined $100T for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency settled an enforcement
action against the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), and
four private parties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act
at the John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Building in
Boston, according to an EPA press release dated March 2, 2011.

The parties will collectively pay a penalty of US$100,000.

The action alleged that GSA, Goody Clancy and Associates, ATC
Associates, Suffolk Construction Company and Fleet Industrial
Services violated federal CAA requirements for failing to properly
remove, handle and dispose of asbestos during the building's
renovations in 2007.

GSA is the owner/operator of the building, and the private
companies were asbestos abatement contractors, and architectural
and construction contractors to GSA during the time of the
renovations and violations.

The violations were discovered during joint inspections by EPA and
the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety.  Following the
inspections, EPA issued an Immediate Compliance Order requiring
GSA and the companies to quickly remedy their actions.

GSA and the companies expeditiously complied with the Order, and
EPA is not aware of any harm to human health and the environment
caused by the alleged violations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oney Case v. KCSR Filed on Feb. 25 in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Oney, on behalf of his late father Daniel Oney, on Feb. 25,
2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit under the Federal Employers
Liability Act against Kansas City Southern Railway Co. in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

According to the suit, from 1971 to 1994, Daniel Oney was employed
by KCSR and worked throughout Jefferson County.

During his employment, Daniel Oney was allegedly exposed to
asbestos and diesel exhaust.  As a result, he was diagnosed with
lung caner on April 28, 2010, and died June 2, 2010, the suit
alleges.

Houston attorney Mark Berry, Esq., of Sammons & Berry represents
Ronald Oney.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B189-458.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition in Marze Filed on Feb. 28 in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladana Kiffe, of Groves, Tex., on Feb. 28, 2011, filed a petition
to perpetuate the testimony of Robert Marze, a former Texaco
employee who suffers from lung cancer, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Through Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde, Esq. the petition was
filed 28 in Jefferson County District Court.  The anticipated
defendants in the pending suit are Texaco and Chevron USA.

According to the petition, Mr. Marze was diagnosed with lung
cancer.  The petition does not state when he was diagnosed but
does allege the disease "is expected to progress" and ultimately
prove fatal.

The suit stated, "The substance of the testimony which petitioner
expects to elicit involves Marze's employment and exposure history
at Texaco."

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B189-476.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bittner Case v. 88 Firms Filed Feb. 16 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Bittner, of Gibsonia, Pa., on Feb. 16, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 88 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Bittner was exposed to and did inhale
dust and asbestos fibers during his employment career.  In October
2010, he claims he was diagnosed with colon cancer and asbestosis.

Mr. Bittner seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  He is being
represented by Brian A. Prim, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-256 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Notch Penalized $4.8T for Cleanup Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
has assessed US$4,800 in penalties to Top Notch Abatement of
Palmer, Mass., for failing to follow asbestos removal procedures
at worksites in Southbridge and Worcester, according to a MassDEP
press release dated March 8, 2011.

Top Notch Abatement is a Thorndike, Mass.-based asbestos
contractor, licensed by the Massachusetts Division of Occupational
Safety.

During an inspection in August 2009, MassDEP inspectors observed
that Top Notch Abatement personnel had failed to seal the work
area leak-tight to prevent fugitive asbestos fiber emissions at a
Southbridge property.  MassDEP inspectors required the Company to
make immediate repairs at that location before continuing the
abatement work.

Subsequently, during an October 2009 inspection, MassDEP
inspectors observed that Top Notch personnel failed to properly
wet asbestos waste materials and seal them into leak-tight labeled
containers during work at a Worcester location, as required by the
regulations.  MassDEP personnel again required the Company to take
immediate corrective measures before continuing abatement work.

In addition to paying a US$4,200 penalty for the 2009 violations,
the terms of the settlement require that the Company pay an
additional US$600 penalty that had previously been suspended under
the terms of a 2008 consent order.  That suspension had been
contingent upon the Company not having repeat violations for one
year.

MassDEP regulations require that asbestos removal contractors seal
work areas, utilize wet methods of removal and handling, and
package any generated asbestos waste in leak-tight labeled
containers to minimize the potential for asbestos fibers to become
airborne.

Properly following the prescribed asbestos removal work practices
is critical to prevent exposure of asbestos fibers to workers and
building occupants, and to preclude other parts of the building
from becoming contaminated.

Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, said, "Asbestos contractors must strictly follow
removal, handling and packaging procedures required by the MassDEP
Asbestos Regulations to protect their workers and the general
public from exposure to this carcinogen.

"The cost of noncompliance includes the payment of penalties, as
well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs,"



Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials; notification requirements; proper removal,
handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures; or the
Asbestos Regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate
MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eco-Industrial to Pay C$35T for Safety Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eco-Industrial Business Park Inc., on March 8, 2011, was ordered
to pay a C$35,000 penalty relating to its failure to address the
hazard of asbestos exposure at an Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
demolition site, the Edmonton Sun reports.

Eco-Industrial was fined C$5,000 after pleading guilty in
provincial court to a charge under the Occupational Health and
Safety Act.  The Company must make a C$30,000 donation to the
Alberta Workers Health Centre, a charitable group that educates
workers about unsafe jobsite situations.

According to agreed facts, Eco-Industrial purchased the former
Celanese Edmonton plant located at 1250 Hayter Rd. on Jan. 9,
2008, and was doing demolition work on various buildings on the
site as part of a redevelopment.

Within the project, the Company contracted with Canadian
Consolidated Salvage Ltd. to do a salvage and demolition job at a
former cigarette processing plant there, beginning in the summer
of 2008.

On Aug. 22, 2008, Occupational Health and Safety investigators
were onsite for an unrelated work injury and became concerned
about materials containing asbestos after noting loose insulation
and significant amounts of white powder surrounding some
dismantled piping.

The investigators took eight samples and five of them tested
positive for asbestos fibers, including two that contained 50
percent asbestos content.

Records indicated 15 workers had potentially been working in the
areas where asbestos was found and 12 were tested for asbestos
exposure.  Three declined to be tested.

The Court heard it is not possible to determine if any of the 12
workers were exposed to asbestos.  However, Judge Allan Lefever
noted that damage from asbestos exposure can result many years
later.

Defense lawyer Brad Leebody told court it was the Company's fault
for not doing their own testing as the prime contractor and the
Company "clearly understands what it did wrong" and wants to
ensure it never happens again.

Canadian Consolidated is still facing Occupation Health and Safety
Act charges relating to the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Victims Nearing $43MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,100 victims of asbestos contamination are close to a
US$43 million settlement on claims that Montana health officials
failed to warn miners about the hazards of a deadly vermiculite
mine, documents in the case indicate, the Associated Press
reports.

Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands sickened
following decades of exposure to asbestos from the now-shuttered
W.R. Grace & Co. mine, in the small town of Libby, Mont.

Claimant notices obtained by The Associated Press on March 8, 2011
show at least 1,125 victims are considering a deal that calls for
payments ranging from US$21,500 to US$60,700, depending on the
severity of sickness.  Attorneys in the case would get one-third
of the US$43 million, which would be subtracted from victim
payments.  Terms of the deal were first reported by the Daily
Inter Lake.

In 2004, the Montana Supreme Court said the state should have
warned miners about health hazards first identified by state
officials in Libby in the 1950s.  Justice Patricia Cotter said,
"Plainly, the state knew as a result of its inspections that the
mine's owner was doing nothing to protect the workers from the
toxins in their midst."

Attorneys for the state and victims have since been negotiating
terms of a monetary settlement under which state agencies would be
released from future liability.

The Libby mine closed in 1990, and more than US$330 million has
been spent on a cleanup that is expected to go on for years.  W.R.
Grace & Co. escaped most liability when it filed for bankruptcy
after the extent of contamination was revealed.

The state settlement stems from multiple lawsuits brought against
Montana agencies for failing to protect victims in Libby.

Attorney Tom Lewis, Esq., whose Great Falls firm represents some
of the victims, said he could not comment on the settlement.

The state's case is being handled by the Risk Management and Tort
Division of the Department of Administration.  The division's
chief defense counsel, Bill Gianoulias, Esq., said he could not
comment on the settlement.

A memorandum of understanding outlining the US$43 million deal was
signed by parties to the case in November 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesdale Resident Wins Case v. Hawkins & Holmes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cyril James Faulkner, of Teesdale, England, a pensioner who
developed mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos, has
won his battle for justice against his former employer, Hawkins
and Holmes Limited, the Teesdale Mercury reports.

The 86-year-old Mr. Faulkner was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
October 2008 as a result of more than 10 years of asbestos
exposure.  Following his diagnosis, Mr. Faulkner, who was
regularly exposed to asbestos as he worked as a plumber for
Hawkins and Holmes, turned to legal firm Irwin Mitchell for help
in his bid for justice.

In order to complete his duties at Hawkins and Holmes, Mr.
Faulkner came into close contact with asbestos lagging on a daily
basis as he maintained and repaired boilers and flue pipes.

Mr. Faulkner was never issued with safety equipment which would
have protected him from inhaling the lethal asbestos dust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gilkisons to Settle $200T for Disability Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert and Cynthia Gilkison, on Feb. 24, 2011, agreed to pay
US$200,000 to settle a civil claim that Mr. Gilkison fraudulently
collected US$278,348.61 in Railroad Retirement Board disability
benefits, The West Virginia Record reports.

U.S. Attorney Carter Stewart wrote, "Despite telling the RRB that
he received only US$400 a month, Mr. Gilkison received hundreds,
if not thousands, of dollars in additional compensation each
month."

U.S. District Judge Sandra Beckwith of Cincinnati entered judgment
imposing a lien on Mr. Gilkison's home in Maysville, Ky.  He can
keep the home if he pays US$20,000 now and US$1,000 a month for 15
years.  The settlement does not preclude criminal prosecution or
Internal Revenue Service action.

Mr. Gilkison worked for the firm of Peirce, Raimond and Coulter,
recruiting United Transportation Union members to sue CSX for
exposing them to asbestos.  He had worked for the railroad from
1962 to 1989.

In 2009, jurors in federal court at Wheeling cleared Mr. Gilkison
of civil fraud claims that CSX brought against him and the Peirce
firm.  In the course of his defense, however, he exposed his
disability fraud.

Prior to trial, CSX lawyer Marc Williams, Esq., of Huntington
wrote that the Peirce firm tried to minimize Mr. Gilkison's
importance.  Mr. Williams wrote that the benefits Mr. Gilkison
received beyond his official pay demonstrated a different kind of
employee.

His testimony foreshadowed the civil complaint that U.S. Attorney
Stewart filed on Feb. 24, 2011, with the settlement already in
place.  Mr. Stewart wrote that Mr. Gilkison applied for disability
benefits in 1989, after 27 years with the railroad.

Mr. Stewart wrote that Gilkison submitted regular reports stating
he received US$400 a month, first from Law Firm A and then from
Law Firm B.

Law Firm A is Burge and Wettermark of Birmingham, Ala., and Law
Firm B is Peirce's firm.  Mr. Stewart wrote that in each report,
Mr. Gilkison stated he received no free meals, transportation or
other special earnings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surrey Firm Fined C$15T for Disposal Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Speedy Excavating Ltd, a Surrey, British Columbia, Canada-based
company -- together with Kelbeir Singh Sall and Bhupinder Singh
Dhillon -- have been fined C$15,000 for illegally dumping
asbestos-laced drywall at a New Westminster recycling plant, The
Provice reports.

Mr. Sall, Mr. Dhillon and the Company were facing nine charges
under B.C.'s Environmental Management Act for illegally
transporting and disposing of hazardous waste.

On March 7, 2011, a plea was entered in B.C. Provincial Court in
Surrey on behalf of Speedy Excavating to one of the counts.  The
other eight charges were stayed, along with all of the charges
against Mr. Sall and Mr. Dhillon.

In December 2008, the Company disposed of drywall, also known as
gypsum or Gyproc, at New West Gypsum Recycling.  However because
the drywall contained asbestos, it needed to be transported to a
special facility in Alberta for disposal.

The cost of shipping drywall to Alberta is about C$7,000 to
C$10,000 per bin, compared to about C$100 per metric ton to have
it hauled away locally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheltenham Postmaster's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of assistant postmaster Keith
Stiley, of Cheltenham, England, was related to workplace exposure
to asbestos, this is Gloucestershire reports.

The inquest heard Mr. Stiley died after breathing in asbestos dust
at work at the former post office in Cheltenham's Promenade.
During his working life, he had no idea he was in any danger, but
after he retired a former colleague told him the building had been
completely sealed up while asbestos lagging pipes in the basement
was removed.

Mr. Stiley died at the Sue Ryder Hospice in Leckhampton in March
2010 at the age of 84.  Deputy coroner David Dooley heard that
during his work, Mr. Stiley would make three or four visits a day
to the basement of the post office -- a former hotel -- where many
pipes were lagged with flaking and broken asbestos.

Mr. Stiley's daughter, Carolyn Smart, told the hearing at the
Seasons Conference Centre in Cheltenham that her father had been
deputy postmaster for Cheltenham and postmaster at Cinderford.

Mrs. Smart said, "From 1947 to 1985 he worked his way up from
messenger boy to assistant postmaster.  He was in good health
apart from an irregular heartbeat until he was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma at Hartlands Hospital in Birmingham in
March 2009.

"He believed he came into contact with it (asbestos) while working
in the basement at the post office in Cheltenham, where asbestos
lagging on pipework was in poor condition."

Mrs. Smart said her father made a claim against the post office
and was awarded more than GBP11,000.  Mr. Stiley's health
deteriorated throughout 2009 and after he was admitted to hospital
on March 2, 2010, he was transferred to the Sue Ryder Hospice
where he died a few days later.  He made a statement in support of
his claim in which he said he had to go down to the basement at
the Promenade post office three or four times every day.

The claim also included statements from colleagues Mr. Stiley had
worked with who confirmed the presence of asbestos in the
basement.

The inquest was told that there had been a low count of asbestos
fibers found in Mr. Stiley's lungs in a postmortem examination,
but mesothelioma had previously been seen in the local area with
similar low counts.  He had died from a blood clot on the lung
brought on by the cancer.

Mr. Dooley said mesothelioma was invariably connected with
asbestos and with a 31-year history of going into the post office
basement, he could say the disease arose because of and during his
employment.  He recorded a verdict of death from an industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maple Case v. 68 Firms Filed on Feb. 4 in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Maple of Kentucky, on Feb. 4, 2011, on behalf of her deceased
next-of-kin Durwood Maple, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 68
defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Maple is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.  Erik Karst,
Esq., and Matthew J. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste in
Houston will serve of counsel.

In her complaint, Ms. Maple alleges the defendant companies caused
her recently Mr. Maple to develop lung cancer after his exposure
to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

Mr. Maple worked in Kentucky at Illinois Central during the 1950s,
as a millwright at various industrial sites from 1959 until 1980,
as a home repairman from 1946 until 1980 and as a shade tree
mechanic from 1946 until 1980, the suit states.

Because of Mr. Maple's death on Nov. 14, 2009, his family incurred
substantial funeral and burial expenses, according to the
complaint.

In her 12-count complaint, Ms. Maple seeks a judgment for more
than US$100,000, plus economic damages of more than US$150,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000,
compensatory damages of more than US$200,000.

At the appellate court in Mount Vernon, justices are hearing an
appeal made by defendants in several asbestos cases filed by out
of state plaintiffs in St. Clair County.

The defendants are arguing that St. Clair County is not an
appropriate venue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GHAPS Board Grants $76,000 for Asbestos Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Board members of the Grand Haven Area Public School in Grand
Haven, Mich., on March 7, 2011, approved contracts to remove
asbestos from four of the district's elementary schools,
GrandHavenTribune.com reports.

According to the board, the buildings would have insulation and
building materials made of or containing asbestos removed by three
contractors for a total of US$76,845.

The asbestos will be removed from Lake Hills, Mary A. White, Peach
Plains and Robinson elementary schools as a part of the second
phase of district-wide energy upgrades, said Ted Rescorla,
director of operations for Grand Haven public schools.  He added
that, currently, the asbestos poses no risk to students or staff.

The mineral can be found in various parts of the school, Mr.
Rescorla said, including panels of transite (asbestos cement
building material) used on the outside of some buildings.

These panels will be the first to go when removal begins during
the week of April 4, 2011, the district's spring break, Mr.
Rescorla said.  The rest will be removed during the second week of
June 2011.

The district had also sought bids for the removal of asbestos from
Lakeshore Middle School, but Mr. Rescorla asked the board to turn
them down.  The project would cost too much for the current fiscal
year, he said.

                            *********

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  * * *