---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 58

                             Headlines

3M: Seeks Approval of Age Discrimination Class Action Settlement
ABC WINDOWS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Enters MOU to Settle Securities Class Actions
ANSWERS CORP: Defends Class Suits Over AFCV Proposed Merger
AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Labor Practices-Related Suits

BCBS: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Seek Class Certification
BENIHANA CORP: Removes "Akaosugi" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
BEST BUY: Barroway Topaz Kessler Files Securities Class Action
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in W.Va.

CHEMUNG FINANCIAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in New York
CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
CHINA NORTH: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits in New York
CNX GAS: Court Hears Arguments on Natural Gas Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defending Suits Over Uncompensated Working Time

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Medrano" Suit in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Decision on Appeal From Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Revised MDL Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs in Milk-Related Suit Amend Complaints
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in "Verzani" Suit Still Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Certification in "Kilano" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Khang" Suit in California
DOLLAR TREE: June Pretrial Conference in Store Managers Suit Set
DOLLAR TREE: Expects Court to Rule on Motion to Decertify in 2011
DOLLAR TREE: Expects 4th Circuit to Rule on Appeal This Year

DUPONT CHAMBERS: Settles Class Action for $8.3 Million
DVI INC: Pa. Court Approves Proposed Class Action Settlement
DYNEX CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Court to Hear Arguments on Legal Fees
DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Certifies Class in Teamsters Suit
FINISAR CORP: Accused of Violations of Federal Securities Laws

FINISAR CORP: Faces Second Suit Over Securities Law Violations
GENERAL MOTORS: 207 Former Dealers Win Class Certification
HEALTHMARKETS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Plea in Hopkins Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
KADANT INC: Continues to Discuss Resolution of Former Class Suits

KAWASAKI MOTOR: Recalls 3,500 Gasoline-Powered Backpack Blowers
KIT DIGITAL: Defending Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend "Martinez" Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in Illinois
MANNKIND CORP: Continues to Defend AFREZZA-Related Suits in Calif.

MARUYAMA U.S.: Recalls 18,750 Backpack Blowers and Mister Dusters
MEDCO HEALTH: CalPERS Not Part of 2002 Class Action Settlement
MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Continues to Defend "Knight" Suit in New York
MEDIACOM LLC: Still Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit
MEDIACOM LLC: Inks Settlement of "Going Private" Lawsuits

MEDIFAST INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Fights Insurers Over Fee Award in AMICAS Suit
MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend "Brake Products" Suit in California
MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Franchisee Class Suit in Canada
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Stock Option Litigation

NATIONAL WESTERN: Paid $22.4 Million Under 2004 Suit Settlement
NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Still Defends Class Action Suit in California
OLD SECOND BANCORP: Defends ERISA Class Action in Illinois
ONVIA INC: Awaits Final Resolution of Appeals in Securities Suit

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
REWARDS GROUP: Investors File Class Action
SECURITIES AMERICA: Judge Junks $21-Mil. Class Action Settlement
TARGET CORP: Sued for Recording Customers Personal Information
TELUS CORP: British Columbia Customers Can Pursue Class Action

TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal in Bondholder Class Suit Remains Pending
UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Larsen" Suit Set for March 2012 Trial
US HOME: Receives $370,000 as Reimbursement to Legal Fees Incurred
VANCOUVER, CANADA: Condo Owners File Class Action

VITACOST.COM: McGladrey & Pullen Resigns Due to Class Suit
WALGREEN CO: Judge Allows Mouth Rinse Class Action to Proceed



                             *********

3M: Seeks Approval of Age Discrimination Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M on March 18 disclosed that it has filed in Minnesota District
Court a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement regarding the Whitaker et al. vs. 3M Company lawsuit.
The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court.

The suit, which was originally filed in December 2004, alleges
claims of age discrimination under Minnesota law on behalf of a
claimed class of current and former Minnesota employees, over the
age of 46, who worked in salaried, non-executive, exempt
positions.

Under terms of the settlement agreement, 3M will pay up to $12
million to resolve the claims of all of the approximately 7000
members of the proposed settlement class.  Full administration of
the settlement will be handled by a third party administrator over
the coming months.


ABC WINDOWS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Riverside County entered an
Order in litigation against ABC preliminarily approving a proposed
class action settlement.

The litigation involves ABC windows installed in California homes
from May 11, 1995 through August 1, 1997.  Plaintiffs allege that
there are defects in ABC windows and sliding doors that cause them
to leak and breach implied warranties.  ABC denies plaintiffs
allegations.  If you are a Class Member, you have the following
three choices: 1) participate in the settlement; 2) do not
participate in the settlement; or 3) object to the settlement.
Please be advised if Class Members do not submit a timely request
for exclusion, they will not be allowed to exclude themselves from
the Class, and they will be bound by the judgment in this case.

To participate in the settlement, Class Members must mail a
completed Claim Form, postmarked not later than June 17, 2011, to
the Settlement Administrator.  Class Members may obtain a Claims
Packet by calling 1-877-271-5522 or by visiting the settlement
Web site at http://www.ABCWindowSettlement.com/

The Claims Packet provides detailed information about how to make
a claim.  If Class Members do not want to participate in the
settlement, they must mail a properly completed Request for
Exclusion postmarked on or before April 18, 2011.  Details on how
to properly request exclusion may be found on the detailed notice
available at http://www.ABCWindowSettlement.com/or by calling the
Settlement Administrator at 1-877-271-5522.  If Class Members wish
to object to the Settlement, they have the right to be heard in
person, in writing or through an attorney in support of or in
opposition to the settlement.  Details on how to be heard in
person, in writing or through an attorney, may be found in the
detailed notice available at http://www.ABCWindowSettlement.com/
or by calling the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-271-5522.

If Class Members have further questions or need further
information, they may contact (1) the Settlement Administrator at
1-877-271-5522; (2) Class Counsel Paul Stevens at (310) 396-9600
or at pstevens@milsteinadelman.com or (3) visit the settlement
Web site at http://www.ABCWindowSettlement.com/

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR
INFORMATION.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Enters MOU to Settle Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the securities class actions against it
and certain of its officers, according to the Company's March 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., and certain of its present or former
officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege
violations of the federal securities laws and/or state law.
Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws have been filed against the Company and
certain of its present or former directors or officers.  These
suits include four class actions filed in January and February of
2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008, under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 08 CV 411.  On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting
Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance
Corporation, et al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United
States District for the Southern District of New York.  On or
about August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
in the consolidated action.  The consolidated amended complaint
includes the allegations presented by the original four class
actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry
action, and additional allegations.  The consolidated amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on
behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS," issued in February of
2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock
in Ambac's March 2008 offerings.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, the underwriters for the three offerings, the Company's
independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and
former directors and officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and
financial results and guarantees of collateralized debt obligation
and mortgage-backed securities transactions and that the
Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings
were made contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of the securities laws.  On August 27, 2009, the Company
and the individual defendants named in the consolidated securities
action moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On
February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of
the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting
in the dismissal of the Company's independent Certified Public
Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the motions to
dismiss.  On April 15, 2010, the Court ordered a Discovery Plan
and Proposed Pretrial Schedule, pursuant to which discovery was
scheduled to commence on May 10, 2010, with dispositive motions
due by December 2, 2011.

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009.  This action
is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged
Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates,
Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008.  The
STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a
subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in
violation of the securities laws.  On April 15, 2009, the Company
and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On December 23, 2009, the Court initially
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that
decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case
before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss.  The
additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010.

On December 9, 2010, Ambac and certain of its present or former
officers or directors, including the present or former officers or
directors, who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead
plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial
Group, Inc. for settlement of both of the Securities Class
Actions.  The MOU provides that the claims of the putative
plaintiff classes will be settled for a cash payment of
$27,100,000.  The insurance carriers who provided directors and
officers' liability coverage to Ambac's present and former
officers and directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have
agreed to pay $24,600,000 of the settlement and Ambac has agreed
to pay $2,500,000 of the settlement (classified as Restricted Cash
on the Consolidated Balance Sheet since these amounts are held in
escrow).  Lead and named plaintiffs in the Securities Class
Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the
settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims against, among
others, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who
are parties to the MOU.  The settlement provided for in the MOU is
subject to various conditions, including, among others, approval
by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and approval by the bankruptcy court of Ambac's entry
into the settlement and the releases and bar orders that would
release and bar claims against present or former officers or
directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or
might be in the future asserted by or on behalf of Ambac,
including claims purportedly asserted derivatively by any
shareholder or creditor of Ambac.  The MOU further provides that
nothing in the MOU will be deemed an admission by any defendant
(or any person or entity associated with any defendant) of any
fault, liability, or wrongdoing.  The MOU also provides that the
parties will attempt in good faith to agree upon and execute an
appropriate stipulation of settlement and to seek the necessary
court approvals of the settlement.


ANSWERS CORP: Defends Class Suits Over AFCV Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Answers Corporation and its directors have been named as
defendants in eight purported class actions filed on behalf of the
public stockholders of the Company challenging the proposed merger
transaction pursuant to which the Company will be merged with a
subsidiary of AFCV Holdings, LLC, and will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of AFCV, according to the Company's March 17, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 4, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the Supreme Court of New York in New York County, State of New
York, Mathason v. Rosenschein, et. al., Index No. 650311/2011 on
behalf of a putative class of Answers.com stockholders and naming
as defendants Answers.com, all the members of the Answers.com
board of directors, Summit Partners ("Summit" ) and AFCV. The
plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection with the approval
of the merger agreement, the members of the Answers.com board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Answers.com
stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Answers.com to its stockholders because the
merger price of $10.50 per share of common stock allegedly does
not reflect the true value of Answers.com stock, and (ii)
purportedly failing to comply with their disclosure obligations.
The plaintiffs further assert that Summit and AFCV aided and
abetted the members of the Answers.com board of directors in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek
among other things a declaration that the members of the
Answers.com board of directors have breached their fiduciary
duties, an injunction barring consummation of the merger or
rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger
agreement, and an award of fees, expenses and costs to plaintiffs
and their attorneys. In addition, the plaintiffs have served a
request for production of documents. On March 7, 2011, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, adding additional alleged disclosure
violations and a claim against Answers.com for aiding and abetting
the members of the Answers.com board's alleged breach of fiduciary
duty and subsequently moved for expedited discovery. On March 9,
2011, Answers.com and the members of the Answers.com board of
directors moved by Order to Show Cause to stay or dismiss this
action in favor of the Delaware actions. The court adjourned all
pending motions to a status conference on May 3, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, another purported class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, Lewis v.
Answers Corporation, et.al., Case No. 6170-VCN, naming as
defendants Answers.com, all the members of the Answers.com board
of directors, AFCV, A-Team Acquisition Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub") and
Summit. The plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection with
the approval of the merger agreement, the members of the
Answers.com board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to Answers.com stockholders by, among other things, (i)
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Answers.com to its
stockholders because the merger price of $10.50 per share of
common stock allegedly does not reflect the true value of
Answers.com stock, and (ii) creating supposedly preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement. The plaintiffs further
allege that AFCV, Summit and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
members of the Answers.com board of directors in the alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek among
other things an order enjoining the defendants from consummating
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless and
until Answers.com adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain a merger agreement providing the best possible terms for
stockholders, and damages and attorneys' fees. In addition, the
plaintiffs have served a request for production of documents.

On February 9, 2011, a third purported class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, Wilhelm
v. Answers Corporation, et.al., Case No. 6177-VCN, naming as
defendants Answers.com, all the members of the board of directors,
AFCV, and Merger Sub. The plaintiffs generally allege that, in
connection with the approval of the merger agreement, the members
of the Answers.com board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to Answers.com stockholders by, among other things,
(i) failing to take steps to maximize the value of Answers.com to
its stockholders because the merger price of $10.50 per share of
common stock allegedly does not reflect the true value of
Answers.com stock, and (ii) creating allegedly preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement. The plaintiffs further
allege that Answers.com, AFCV, and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the members of the Answers.com board of directors in the alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek among
other things an order enjoining the defendants from consummating
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless and
until Answers.com adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain a merger agreement providing the best possible terms for
stockholders, and damages and attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2011, a fourth purported class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware,
Iroquois Master Fund Ltd. v. Answers Corporation, et. al., Case
No. 6183-VCN, naming as defendants Answers.com, all the members of
the Answers.com board of directors, AFCV, Merger Sub and Summit.
The plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection with the
approval of the merger agreement, the members of the Answers.com
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to
Answers.com stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to
take steps to maximize the value of Answers.com to its
stockholders because the merger price of $10.50 per share of
common stock allegedly does not reflect the true value of
Answers.com stock, (ii) failing to shop Answers.com properly, and
(iii) creating allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the
merger agreement. The plaintiffs further allege that AFCV, Summit
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the members of the Answers.com
board of directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.  On March 3, 2011, plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended complaint, adding additional allegations that, among other
things, (i) the members of the Board were allegedly acting to
advance their own interests at the expense of Company
shareholders; (ii) the members of the Board purportedly failed to
comply with their disclosure obligations in the final proxy
statement filed on February 28, 2011; and (iii) the investment
banking advisor, UBS Securities, LLC, was purportedly conflicted,
and its opinion stating that the transaction was fair was
purportedly based on flawed information.  The plaintiffs seek
among other things an injunction barring consummation of the
merger or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
merger, and damages and attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2011, a fifth purported class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware,
Teitelbaum v. Rosenschein, et.al., Case No. 6186-VCN, naming as
defendants Answers.com, all the members of the Answers.com board
of directors, AFCV, Merger Sub and Summit. The plaintiffs
generally allege that, in connection with the approval of the
merger agreement, the members of the Answers.com board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Answers.com
stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Answers.com to its stockholders because the
merger price of $10.50 per share of common stock allegedly does
not reflect the true value of Answers.com stock, and (ii) creating
allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger
agreement. The plaintiffs further allege that AFCV, Summit and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the members of the Answers.com board
of directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs seek among other things an injunction barring
consummation of the merger, an order imposing a constructive
trust, in favor of the putative class upon any benefits improperly
received by the defendants as a result of their allegedly wrongful
conduct, and damages and attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2011, a sixth purported class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, Dressler
v. Answers Corporation, et.al., Case No. 6189-VCN, naming as
defendants Answers.com, all the members of the Answers.com board
of directors, AFCV, the Merger Sub and Summit. The plaintiffs
generally allege that, in connection with the approval of the
merger agreement, the members of the Answers.com board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Answers.com
stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Answers.com to its stockholders because the
merger price of $10.50 per share of common stock allegedly does
not reflect the true value of Answers.com stock, (ii) acting to
advance their own interests at the expense of Answers.com
stockholders, and (iii) creating allegedly preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement. The plaintiffs further
allege that AFC and Summit aided and abetted the members of the
Answers.com board of directors in the alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek among other things an
injunction barring consummation of the merger or rescinding, to
the extent already implemented, the merger, and damages and
attorneys' fees.

On February 25, 2011, a seventh purported class action complaint
was filed in the Supreme Court of New York in New York County,
State of New York, Fruchter v. Answers Corporation, et. al., Index
No. 650532/2011, naming as defendants Answers.com, all the members
of the Answers.com board of directors, AFCV, Merger Sub, Summit
and Redpoint. The plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection
with the approval of the merger agreement, the members of the
Answers.com board of directors and Answers.com breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Answers.com stockholders by, among other
things, (i) failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Answers.com to its stockholders because the merger price of $10.50
per share allegedly does not reflect the true value of Answers.com
stock, (ii) acting to advance their own interests at the expense
of Answers.com stockholders, (iii) purportedly failing to comply
with their disclosure obligations; and (iv) creating supposedly
preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The
plaintiffs further allege that AFCV, Summit, Merger Sub and
Redpoint aided and abetted the members of the Answers.com board of
directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs seek among other things a declaration that the members
of the Answers.com board of directors have breached their
fiduciary duties, an injunction barring consummation of the merger
or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger, an
order directing the members of the Answers.com board of directors
to exercise their fiduciary duties to fully disclose material
facts to Answers.com stockholders necessary for them to make a
fully informed decision as to whether to vote in support of the
merger, and damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 1, 2011, an eighth purported class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery, the State of Delaware, Dooley v.
Answers Corporation, et. al., Case No. 6236, naming as defendants
Answers.com, all the members of the Answers.com board of
directors, AFCV, and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs generally allege
that, in connection with the approval of the merger agreement, the
members of the Answers.com board of directors and Answers.com
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Answers.com stockholders
by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to maximize the
value of Answers.com to its stockholders because the merger price
of $10.50 per share allegedly does not reflect the true value of
Answers.com stock, (ii) acting to advance their own interests at
the expense of Answers.com stockholders, (iii) purportedly failing
to comply with their disclosure obligations in the definitive
proxy statement filed on February 28, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC"); and (iv) creating supposedly
preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The
plaintiffs further allege that AFCV and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the members of the Answers.com board of directors in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek
among other things, an injunction barring consummation of the
merger or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
merger, and damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 4, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated all
six Delaware actions and scheduled a preliminary injunction
hearing for April 5, 2011.

The defendants in each of these actions are actively contesting
these claims. The Company says that even if it is successful in
defending the lawsuits, it may incur substantial costs and
diversion of management time and resources to defend the
litigation.


AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Labor Practices-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autozone, Inc., is involved in various legal proceedings
incidental to the conduct of its business, including several
lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees
who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful
termination practices.  The Company does not currently believe
that, in the aggregate, these matters will result in liabilities
material to its financial condition, results of operations, or
cash flows.

No further details were reported in the Company's March 17, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 12, 2011.


BCBS: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2011, the provider plaintiffs in PCA v. BCBSA et al.
Class Action Lawsuit (Case: 1:09-cv-05619), filed motion to
certify class in Northern District Court of Illinois, seeking for
remedies in Injunctive Relief, asking Federal Court to find that
Federal law ERISA govern BCBS overpayment dispute; 23 BCBS
entities violated ERISA in their overpayment recoupment; and BCBS
must comply with ERISA in all future overpayment recoupment, and
more importantly, BCBS entities must refund all providers all of
the money recouped in any violative practice.  This motion was
filed after the Court ruled, on May 17, 2010, that the plaintiffs
ERISA class action may proceed against 23 BCBS entities, rejecting
defendant BCBS state law and provider contract arguments under
ERISA complete State law pre-emption ruling by U.S. Supreme Court.

ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars to assess this case, as the
overpayment recoupment is a billion dollar healthcare market with
little judicial guidance, and a court historical decision may
profoundly reshape the U.S. healthcare market and finance.

"The importance of this class action is to seek for judicial
guidance when hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake with
little or no legal guidance, when more than 60% of national
personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills," said Dr. Jin
Zhou, President of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert in ERISA
claims and compliance.

According to the court records, provider plaintiffs' motion to
certify class, seeking for remedies states in part:

(Case: 1:09-cv-05619 Document #: 460 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 37 of 63
PageID #:18756)

"The Appropriate Remedy for Defendants' ERISA Violations is a
Common Issue for All Class Members

Defendants may assert many different reasons for seeking
repayments of previously paid benefits from Class Members. The
Court need not adjudicate the validity of those retroactive
Adverse Benefit Determinations, however.  As demonstrated above,
Plaintiffs seek a finding that (1) ERISA governs Defendants'
efforts to recover previously paid ERISA benefits, and (2)
Defendants violated ERISA by making repayment demands and
recouping benefits without complying with ERISA, including by
failing to comply with ERISA's requirements for a full and fair
review.  Once the ERISA violations have been established, the
Court will not be required to review the underlying repayment
demands. Instead, the proper remedy will be to void the violative
repayment demands and remand to Defendants, where they can
reconsider the payments and, if they elect to pursue repayment, do
so in compliance with ERISA.  The remedy sought by Plaintiffs is
therefore injunctive."

"The common relief sought in the present action is the identical
return to the status quo prior to the violation of ERISA and
classwide injunctive relief requiring Defendants to comply with
ERISA -- including by providing a full and fair review of any
overpayment determination -- should they elect to pursue further
post-payment audits and repayment demands going forward."

For a copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion:

     http://erisaclaim.com/BCBS_Class_Motion.pdf

"The court ruling on this ERISA class action with respect to the
provider plaintiffs' remedy in Injunctive relief will be profound
under newly effective federal health reform law, PPACA, and a new
report from Congress on March 16, 2011, indicating that 39% to 59%
appeals successfully reversed insurance denials, but with only a
very small portion (0.5% in OH) of the denial appealed," commented
Dr. Zhou.

On March 14, 2011, AMA reported that More Texas Doctors Dipping
Into Personal Reserves To Keep Practices Alive (www.ama-
assn.org/amednews/2011/03/14/bisc0314.htm)


BENIHANA CORP: Removes "Akaosugi" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tetsuo Akaosugi, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Benihana Inc., et al., Case No. 11-508200
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on February 14,
2011.  The plaintiffs accuse the "defendant" of (1)
misclassification of salaried restaurant managers and failure to
pay overtime; (2) unlawful forfeiture of accrued vacation pay; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest
periods; (5) failure to pay wages upon termination; (6) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) violations of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.

On the basis that the appropriate district court has original
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d), 1441(b), and 1446, as well as the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.,
Benihana National Corp. [incorrectly sued as "Benihana, Inc., dba
Benihana National Corp."], on March 16, 2011, removed the lawsuit
to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned
Case No. 11-cv-01272 to the proceeding.

According to the removal notice, Benihana, Inc., is a holding
company and is not registered to do business in California.  It
has no agent for service of process in California, and has not
been served.

Benihana National Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  The plaintiffs
assert that "defendant" operates approximately 14 Benihana branded
restaurants in California.

Plaintiff Tetsuo Akaosugi is a former salaried restaurant manager
who was employed by defendant at its San Francisco (Japantown)
location from September 2009 through August 8, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad Yamauchi, Esq.
          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          E-mail: byamauchi@MinamiTamaki.com
                  kallen@minamitamaki.com

Benihaha National Corp. [incorrectly sued as "Benihana, Inc., dba
Benihana National Corporation"] is represented by:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq.
          Robert L. Zaletel, Esq.
          Constance E. Norton, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: mhedwards@littler.com
                  rzaletel@littler.com
                  cnorton@littler.com


BEST BUY: Barroway Topaz Kessler Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
My-Ly Nguyen, writing for Press & Sun-Bulletin, reports that the
law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check said it has
filed a class-action lawsuit against Best Buy on behalf of those
who bought or otherwise acquired the company's securities between
Sept. 14, 2010 and Dec. 13, 2010.

The complaint charges Best Buy with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges the company failed to disclose
that demand for its consumer electronic products was declining
and/or weak and as a result, the company would be unable to
achieve its fiscal 2011 sales and earnings forecasts.

Prior to and throughout the class period, Best Buy touted strong
demand for its products and forecasted fiscal 2011 earnings per
share of up to $3.70.  As a result of these positive statements,
Best Buy stock closed as high as $44.81 per share during the class
period, the law firm said.

But on Dec. 14, 2010, "Best Buy astounded investors" when it
announced its third-quarter results and said product sales were
declining and had been since June 2010, the firm said.

Best Buy representative Sarah Anderson said the company does not
comment or speculate on current litigation.

To view a copy of the complaint or to join the class action, go to
btkmc.com.  The law firm has offices in Radnor, Pa., and San
Francisco.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit named In re: Century
Aluminum Company Securities Litigation filed a notice of appeal
from the order and judgment dismissing the case, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions pending
against the Company consolidated as In re: Century Aluminum
Company Securities Litigation, were dismissed without prejudice.
On May 28, 2010 and June 24, 2010 plaintiffs submitted amended
complaints.  On March 3, 2011, the purported stockholder class
actions pending against the Company consolidated as In re: Century
Aluminum Company Securities Litigation, were dismissed with
prejudice and judgment was entered in the Company's favor.  On
March 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order
and judgment entered by the court on March 3, 2011.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action pending in West Virginia, according to
the Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. filed a
class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, the USWA's
local union, and four CAWV retirees, individually and as class
representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify
or terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November 2009,
the USWA and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate
suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum
Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does.  These
actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et
al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et
al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing changes while
these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the court.  The
USWA has appealed the decision and proceedings have been stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal.  Based upon the Company's
analysis of the court's ruling during the third quarter of 2010,
in accordance with ASC 715-60, "Compensation -- Retirement Plans
-- Defined Benefit Plans -- Other Postretirement," the amendment
to the CAWV postretirement medical plan benefits was recorded as a
negative plan amendment in the third quarter of 2010.  The Company
says it will continue to vigorously pursue its case in these
actions.  As a result of the negative plan amendments, the Company
reduced its Other Postretirement Benefits or OPEB liabilities
$82,036,000 in 2010.


CHEMUNG FINANCIAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Chemung Financial Corporation is facing a stockholder class action
lawsuit filed by Allan O. Birkett in New York, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Following the public announcement on October 15, 2010, of the
execution of the merger agreement by and between Chemung Financial
Corporation and Fort Orange Financial Corp., Allan O. Birkett
filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Albany, on March 11, 2011,
against the Company, FOFC and the directors of FOFC challenging
the Company's proposed acquisition of FOFC.  The lawsuit purports
to be brought on behalf of all public stockholders of FOFC and
alleges, among other things, that the directors of FOFC breached
their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and fair
dealing by agreeing to the proposed transaction at an unfair price
and through an unfair process.  The lawsuit further alleges that
FOFC and the Company aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty
breaches.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the
transaction, rescission in the event the transaction is
consummated, damages and attorney's fees.

The Company, FOFC and the directors of FOFC deny any wrongdoing in
connection with the merger and intend to vigorously defend the
action.


CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that Saxena White P.A. said it filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court on behalf of
investors who purchased China MediaExpress Holdings common stock
between May 14, 2010 through March 11, 2011, including the "Class
Period."

The complaint alleges that China Media and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that the company misrepresented the number of buses in
its advertising network and the nature and extent of its business
relationships; and as such, the company's financial results were
overstated at all relevant times.

On Jan. 31, 2011, Citron Research published a report stating that
China Media misrepresented the scope of the company's operations,
its financial performance, and the extent of the company's claimed
strategic partnership with a government-affiliated entity.

On Feb. 3, 2011, the firm Muddy Waters disclosed that the company
"significantly inflated its revenue and earnings in order to pay
management earn-outs and inflate the stock price so insiders can
sell."  On this issue, shares of China Media common stock fell
$5.52 per share to close on February 3, 2011 at $11.09/Share,
representing a drop of more than 33%.


CHINA NORTH: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited continues to defend
itself against three class action lawsuits in New York alleging
claims under the federal securities laws, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company was recently involved in six legal actions, three of
which are securities class actions and three of which are
shareholder derivative actions, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain
officers and directors.  The three class actions assert claims
under the federal securities laws and the three derivative actions
assert common law claims based on breach of duty.

The six actions are: (1) Rosado v. China North East Petroleum
Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June 11, 2010;
(2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et
al. , 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010; (3) Moore v. China
North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 5263 (MGC),
filed July 9, 2010; (4) Strickland v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 5445
(RMB), filed July 19, 2010; (5) Drobner v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV
6193 (No Judge has been assigned at this time), filed August 23,
2010; and (6) Nicoln v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 6344 (No Judge has
been assigned at this time), filed August 24, 2010.

The time for the Company to respond formally to these lawsuits has
not come.  In addition, the complaints do not specify an amount of
damages that plaintiffs seek.  Because these matters are in very
early stages, the Company says it cannot comment on whether an
adverse outcome is probable or otherwise.  While the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to each of these actions and
intends to defend them vigorously, an adverse outcome in one or
more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


CNX GAS: Court Hears Arguments on Natural Gas Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Mccown, writing for TriCities.com, reports that U.S.
District Court Judge James P. Jones heard arguments on March 17 in
a set of cases that could ultimately change how natural gas rights
are administered in Virginia.

Pitting Southwest Virginia landowners and a team of high-profile
lawyers against two big natural gas companies, the lawsuits deal
with forced pooling and deemed leasing, the process by which
Virginia landowners are required to lease their natural gas rights
for development by gas companies.

Filed as class actions against gas producers CNX and EQT, the
lawsuits allege that the companies have been stealing gas from
individuals for years.

Among the major questions raised in the lawsuits are: whether an
involuntary lease of gas rights has an end point; who owns the
millions of dollars in royalties being held in escrow by the
state; whether gas companies are living up to the terms of their
contracts; and the constitutionality of the whole process.

Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent has made several
recommendations on specific points, which were presented to
Judge Jones.  On March 18, attorneys for both sides of the case
were able to provide Jones with additional arguments.  Judge Jones
is expected to issue his rulings in the next few weeks.

"An oil and gas lease is not what you think of a typical lease as
being," Mississippi attorney Larry Moffett told the judge while
arguing for the plaintiffs.  "It is actually a transfer of the gas
interest from the lessor to the lessee . . . and the economic
effects of this are obvious."

Mr. Moffett said the statutory one-eighth of royalties that
companies are required to pay to gas owners means that landowners
get just a tiny fraction of what their gas is worth, but they
should get all of it.

He said companies like CNX and EQT have been able to "game the
system" that exists under state law to gain control of gas rights
in which they have no legitimate interest.  At the same time,
Mr. Moffett said, by setting the standard of one-eighth, the law
has eliminated gas owners' rights to negotiate a lease on their
own terms.

The bottom line, he said, is that property -- in this case natural
gas -- is being taken unconstitutionally from landowners and given
to gas companies.

Representing the gas companies, Wade Massie and Jonathan Blank
argued on March 18 that the forced leasing of gas rights is not
unconstitutional taking -- and it's not the court's job to pass
judgment on decisions made by legislatures.

Mr. Massie, representing EQT, argues that the company, in
drilling, producing and selling vast quantities of natural gas,
simply acted within its rights under state law, and followed
orders from the Virginia Gas and Oil Board.

If landowners have a complaint, he said, the system contains
remedies other than federal court: a complaint process to the
board and the ability to take individual claims to state circuit
court.

The state court system does not, however, allow class-action
lawsuits.

"There has been no complaint to that board about any of this, no
petition filed," Mr. Massie said.

Mr. Blank, representing CNX, also said the plaintiffs should first
exhaust these remedies, before bringing the case to federal court,
though Jones questioned whether they are, in fact, real and
practical remedies.

Mr. Blank further argued that the plaintiffs, some of whose
pooling orders were entered more than a decade ago, waited too
long before filing their claims.

"I just can't believe the law would say that you can wait all that
time," he said.

Likening the trampling of property rights in Appalachia to the
trampling of civil rights in the Deep South, Mr. Moffett said the
companies are simply trying to delay and avoid the coming "day of
reckoning."

"It's abundantly clear that this series of class action cases we
filed are the only way these class members, the people of
Southwest Virginia, are going to obtain justice," Mr. Moffett
said.  "The people of this region sit atop vast amounts of wealth
in the form of natural resources, but many of them, thousands of
them, have never received a penny for the exploitation of their
gas rights.  And many of them are impoverished."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defending Suits Over Uncompensated Working Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits in California and Washington asserting
claims for uncompensated working time, according to the Company's
March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 13, 2011.

A class action was filed on May 15, 2009 on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff
principally alleges that the Company's routine closing procedures
and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify
as uncompensated working time.  Mary Pytelewski v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case
No. 37-2009-00089654.  On December 14, 2010, the court certified
two classes of hourly non-exempt employees subject to the
Company's closing lockdown procedures: one under California law
for California non-union employees who were subject to the closing
procedures between May 15, 2005, and October 1, 2009; and a
nationwide class under federal law for full-time employees who
were subject to the closing procedures between March 1, 2008, and
October 1, 2009.

A similar class action was filed on November 20, 2009, in the
State of Washington. Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King
County Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA.  On December 3,
2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class
certification; the class certified consists of people employed in
Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through November
2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing
procedures without compensation.  Trial has been scheduled for
February 13, 2012.

Claims in these actions (other than Hawk) are made under various
provisions of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek
restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory
penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Medrano" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation remains a defendant in a putative
class action before a California state court over the Company's
alleged violations of labor laws, according to the Company's
March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 13, 2011.

On July 14, 2010, the putative class action -- Manuel Medrano v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.,
Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC441597.
-- was filed alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay
overtime compensation, denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay
minimum wages, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization
statements, and willfully failed to pay termination wages
allegedly resulting from misclassification of certain California
department managers as exempt employees.  On September 3, 2010,
the Company removed the case to federal court.  The court remanded
the action, and the Company's petition to the Ninth Circuit for
permission to appeal the remand order was denied.  The case is now
proceeding in state court.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Decision on Appeal From Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting an appellate court's
ruling on its appeal from a class certification order entered in a
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of former female managers of
the Company, according to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 13, 2011.

Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States
District Court in San Francisco, Case No. C-04-3341-MHP was
brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former
female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion
based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by the district
court on January 11, 2007.  On May 11, 2007, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear
the Company's appeal of the certification.  The appeal was argued
on April 14, 2008.  The Company continues to await a decision.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Revised MDL Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting court approval of an
amended settlement entered in a multi-district litigation
captioned In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation,
according to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 13, 2011.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).  On June 18, 2007, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In
re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket
No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas.  On February 21, 2008, the court
denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On
April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to a settlement involving the
actions in which it is named as a defendant.  Under the
settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court, the
Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five
years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-
correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members.  On August 18,
2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.  On
August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the settlement.  On February 3, 2011, a revised
settlement agreement was submitted for court approval.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs in Milk-Related Suit Amend Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits relating to sales of organic
milk have filed amended complaints, according to Costco Wholesale
Corporation's March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 13, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
actions relating to sales of organic milk -- Hesse v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); Snell v. Aurora Dairy
Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).  Both actions claim
violations of the laws of various states, essentially alleging
that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp.
was improperly labeled "organic."  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on July 18, 2008.  With respect to the Company,
plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who purchased
Costco organic milk.  Aurora has maintained that it has held and
continues to hold valid organic certifications.  The consolidated
complaint seeks, among other things, actual, compensatory,
statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  On June 3, 2009,
the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice,
among others, all claims against the Company.  As a result of an
appeal by the plaintiffs, on September 15, 2010, the court of
appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings of the
district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in "Verzani" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by the plaintiff in the purported class action
captioned Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp. from rulings
entered by a New York district court is still pending, according
to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 13, 2011.

In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117
(United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York), a purported nationwide class action, the plaintiffs allege
claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to
disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the
weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying
cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.  The complaint seeks
various forms of damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.  On April 21,
2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,
seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless
the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and
provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight.  By orders
dated July 29 and August 6, 2009, the court denied the preliminary
injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach of contract,
and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily affirmed
these rulings.  On September 28, 2010, the district court denied
the motion of one plaintiff to file an amended complaint.  On
December 1, this plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this and
other rulings.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Certification in "Kilano" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting a Michigan court's ruling
on a class certification motion filed in a purported class action
captioned Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., according to
the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 13, 2011.

A purported class action -- Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS (United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan) -- was filed on April 12, 2010,
on behalf of certain Michigan Executive level-members who received
2% rewards.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company "guarantees" that
the member will receive rewards of no less than the fifty dollar
difference between Executive and Gold Star membership and that the
Company is required to but has failed to automatically reimburse
members whose rewards are less than this difference.  Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach
of contract, and unjust enrichment.  They seek compensatory and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company has filed an answer denying the material allegations
of the complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification; subsequently one plaintiff was dismissed from the
action by agreement of the parties.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Khang" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend a purported
nationwide class action captioned Khang v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation in California, according to the Company's March 17,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended February 13, 2011.

In Khang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. SACV11-00311-JST
(CWX) (United States District Court for the Central District Of
California), filed February 23, 2011, plaintiff seeks to represent
a nationwide class of all Costco Executive members in the United
States who "were harmed by Defendant Costco's failure to properly
issue the promised rewards and benefits to its members."  He also
seeks to represent a similar subclass of California-resident
Executive members.  Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract action
on behalf of the nationwide class and California sub-class, and
claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 and Cal. Civil
Code section 1750 on behalf of the California subclass.  He seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees.


DOLLAR TREE: June Pretrial Conference in Store Managers Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., is anticipating that a class action filed by
store managers will go to trial in 2011 before a California
federal court, according to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.

In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against the
Company in California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.  The Court has
allowed notice to be sent to all California store managers
employed since December 12, 2004, and a class of approximately 184
individuals remains.  The Company filed a motion to decertify the
class which was both granted and denied in part.  The current
class was redefined by the Court in its ruling which resulted in a
significant reduction in the number of class members.  The Court
on its own continued a previously scheduled March 2011 trial date.
A pretrial conference has been set for June 2011 at which time a
new trial date will be established.  It is anticipated the case
will go to trial in calendar year 2011.  The Company is vigorously
defending itself in this matter.


DOLLAR TREE: Expects Court to Rule on Motion to Decertify in 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., is anticipating that an Alabama federal court
will decide on its motion to decertify a purported class action
arising from the Equal Pay Act later in 2011, according to the
Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In 2008, the Company was sued under the Equal Pay Act in Alabama
federal court by two female store managers alleging that they and
other female store managers were paid less than male store
managers.  Among other things, they seek monetary damages and back
pay.  The Court ordered that notice be sent to potential
plaintiffs and there are now approximately 363 opt-in plaintiffs.
The Company expects that the Court will rule upon its motion to
decertify the collective action later in 2011.  The Company is
vigorously defending itself in this matter.


DOLLAR TREE: Expects 4th Circuit to Rule on Appeal This Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., expects that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit will hand down a decision in 2011 on an appeal
filed by opt-in plaintiffs in Virginia, according to the Company's
March 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In 2009, 34 plaintiffs, most of whom are opt-in plaintiffs in the
Alabama action, filed a new class action in a federal court in
Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion discrimination under
Title VII.  On March 11, 2010, the case was dismissed with
prejudice.  Plaintiff then filed a motion requesting the Court to
alter, amend and vacate its dismissal Order which the trial Court
denied.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  It is anticipated the Court will
hand down a decision in 2011.


DUPONT CHAMBERS: Settles Class Action for $8.3 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Phil Dunn, writing for New Jersey On-Line, reports that a
preliminary $8.3 million settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit involving a group of Salem County residents and the
DuPont Chambers Works over claims a chemical from the plant has
tainted local drinking water.

The initial settlement, approved by the United States District
Court in Camden, stems from complaints in the suit that local
drinking water contained an unhealthy level of perfluorooctanoic
acid, or PFOA, a substance that purportedly came from DuPont
Chamber Works facility here.

Perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA, was used for years by the
DuPont Co. in the manufacture of compounds for non-stick surfaces
such as Teflon.

A spokesman for DuPont Chambers Works, Dan Turner, said DuPont,
and attorneys for those filing the suit have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the class action lawsuit and individual
claims related over the PFOA issue.

Mr. Turner said the total class settlement is $8.3 million.

"Pending approval, the settlement funds will be used to provide
each household in the class with an option to elect a water filter
system or the cash equivalent," said Mr. Turner.

Approval of the settlement will release DuPont from liability
without an admission of wrongdoing.

DuPont believes the litigation is without merit.

Only certain county residents are eligible for the water filter
system.

They include those who have a private well within a two-mile
radius of DuPont Chambers Works where traces of PFOA have been
found.

The settlement also provides individuals who as of the date of the
suit are residential water customers of the former Penns Grove
Water Supply Co. would receive the filter system.

Mr. Turner said DuPont does not manufacture PFOA at Chambers
Works, but PFOA occurs at trace levels as an unintended by-product
in fluorotelomers manufactured at Chambers Works.

Additionally, it is used as an ingredient in small quantities for
one other product lines also at Chambers Works, said Mr. Turner.

DuPont has tested for PFOAs in the two-mile radius of the Chamber
Works.  Testing began in March 2009 and 85 wells were tested.

The samples are taken by a third-party contractor and then sent to
a certified lab for analysis.

While there is no federal or New Jersey regulatory limit for PFOA
in drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a
provisional health advisory of 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) and New
Jersey has established a preliminary guidance value of 0.04 ppb.

"We are pleased to reach an agreement that places our focus on
plant operations and the community and not on lengthy and
contentious legal proceedings," said Mr. Turner.  "We are clear
that the settlement does not imply any admission of liability."

The revised proposed class settlement was filed in U.S. District
Court in New Jersey on Feb. 22, 2011 and is still subject to final
court approval and challenges.

DuPont is ready to implement the terms of the agreement, once they
are approved by the court, Mr. Turner said.


DVI INC: Pa. Court Approves Proposed Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Krislov & Associates, Ltd. disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved
the following announcement of a partial proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of DVI,
Inc.

Case No. 2:03-CV-5336

Hon. Legrome D. Davis

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION IN NOTICE OF PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION

TO:    ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE SECURITIES OF DVI, INC. (INCLUDING ITS COMMON STOCK
AND 9 7/8% SENIOR NOTES) BETWEEN AUGUST 10, 1999 AND AUGUST 13,
2003, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE THEREBY DAMAGED (THE "CLASS").
EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS; ANY ENTITY IN WHICH A
DEFENDANT HAS A CONTROLLING INTEREST OR IS A PART OR SUBSIDIARY
OF, OR IS CONTROLLED BY A DEFENDANT; THE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS NAMED IN WM HIGH YIELD FUND,
et al. v. O'HANLON, et al., NO. 04-CV-3423 (E.D. PA.).

ON APRIL 29, 2008, AS MODIFIED ON APRIL 30, 2008 AND DECEMBER 30,
2008, THE COURT CERTIFIED THE ABOVE DEFINED CLASS AGAINST ALL
NAMED DEFENDANTS EXCEPT CLIFFORD CHANCE LLP AND CLIFFORD CHANCE
(US) LLP.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN A
SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the above
captioned action have entered into a Settlement with Defendant
Gerald Cohn.  The Settlement terms include releases of, among
other things, the Class' purported claims against Cohn and other
Released Parties (as that phrase is defined in the Stipulation),
but not claims asserted against other defendants.  Particularly
since capitalized terms not defined herein that are defined in the
Stipulation have the meaning set forth therein, you should review
the Stipulation carefully.

Lead Plaintiffs have settled their claims against Gerald Cohn for
cash payment by Mr. Cohn of Four Million dollars ($4,000,000).
The final amount distributed to Class Members will depend upon the
amount of interest earned on these funds and the amount of Court-
approved attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and Notice and
Administration Costs.

The parties to this litigation do not agree that Mr. Cohn has any
liability to the Class or otherwise, or upon the amount of damages
per Common Share and per Senior Note, if any, that would be
recoverable if the Class were to prevail on each claim alleged.
The parties also do not agree as to whether the Class suffered
damages, the amount thereof and how to measure damages.

The Lead Plaintiffs are proposing the Settlement because, upon
consideration of, among other things, the record, the potential
damages, if any, the strength of the Class' claims and the risks
and cost of continued litigation, the Settlement provides
substantial recovery to the Class, is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and is preferable to continued litigation.  Mr. Cohn
denies any liability or wrongdoing, but desires to resolve the
claims asserted under the terms set forth herein and, in more
detail, in the Stipulation.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on May 19, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. to consider and/or
determine: (a) whether the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and
adequate and in the best interests of the Class and should be
finally approved; (b) whether the Order of Final Judgment and
Dismissal, as provided in the Stipulation, should be approved and
entered; (c) whether the Plan of Allocation proposed by Lead
Counsel or some other allocation methodology is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Class and should be
approved; (d) applications for any award of attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses; and (e) such of these and such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUNDS.  If you have not yet received a Proof of Claim and Release
form and the full printed Notice of Hearing on Proposed Partial
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and Attorneys' Fees and Expenses,
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

          DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 230
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 565-9202
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net/

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
and Release forms, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

          Clinton A. Krislov
          Michael R. Karnuth
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500

If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of
Claim and Release form, you will not share in the Settlement but
you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court,
including the release by all Releasors of all Released Claims
against all Released Parties.  Unless you exclude yourself from
the Class on or before April 22, 2011, you will be bound by the
Order and Final Judgment of the Court, including the release by
all Releasors of all Released Claims against all Released Parties.

If you already submitted a valid and timely Proof of Claim and
Release form in the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants OnCure Medical Corp., Dolphin Medical, Inc., and
Presgar Imaging LC, approved by the Court on November 17, 2006, or
in the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants Nathan
Shapiro, William Goldberg and John McHugh, approved by the Court
on Nov. 5, 2007, or in the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., approved by the Court on
April 30, 2008, or in the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants Thomas Pritzker and The Pritzker Organization LLC,
approved by the Court on April 15, 2009 and amended on Aug. 28,
2009, that Proof of Claim and Release form will serve as your
Proof of Claim and Release form in this Settlement and you are
eligible to recover in this Settlement without needing to submit
another Proof of Claim and Release form.

If you did not submit a Proof of Claim and Release form in the
Nov. 17, 2006 Settlement, the Nov. 5, 2007 Settlement, the
April 30, 2008 Settlement, or the Aug. 28, 2009 Settlement,
submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form in this Settlement
does not entitle you to recovery in the Nov. 17, 2006 Settlement,
the Nov. 5, 2007 Settlement, the April 30, 2008 Settlement or the
Aug. 28, 2009 Settlement.  To participate in this Settlement, you
must submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim and Release form to
the Claims Administrator by no later than Aug. 31, 2011.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Claims Administrator at the address above.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.  If you have questions about this
notice, you may consult an attorney of your own choosing or any of
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, whose names and other contact
information are listed above.

All terms used herein that are defined in the Stipulation have the
definition set forth therein.

DATED: MARCH 3, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

CONTACT:  Strategic Claims Services
          Tel: (610) 565-9202
          Fax: (610) 565-7985
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063


DYNEX CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Court to Hear Arguments on Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, has
indicated that it will undertake arguments at a later date over
the reasonableness of attorney's fees in a class action lawsuit
filed in 1997 against Dynex Capital, Inc., and the County of
Allegheny, according to the Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc., and the
County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, are defendants in a class
action lawsuit ("Pentlong") filed in 1997 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  Between 1995 and 1997,
GLS purchased from Allegheny County delinquent county property tax
receivables for properties located in the County.  In their
initial pleadings, the Pentlong plaintiffs alleged that GLS did
not have the right to recover from delinquent taxpayers certain
attorney fees, lien docketing, revival, assignment and
satisfaction costs, and expenses associated with the original
purchase transaction, and interest, in the collection of the
property tax receivables pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal
Claims and Tax Lien Act.  During the course of the litigation, the
Pennsylvania State Legislature enacted Act 20 of 2003, which cured
many deficiencies in the Act at issue in the Pentlong case,
including confirming GLS' right to collect attorney fees from
delinquent taxpayers retroactive back to the date when GLS first
purchased the delinquent tax receivables.

Subsequent to the enactment of Act 20, GLS has filed various
motions with the Court seeking dismissal of the Pentlong
Plaintiffs' remaining claims regarding GLS' right to collect
reasonable attorneys fees from the named plaintiffs and purported
class members; its right to collect lien docketing, revival,
assignment and satisfaction costs from delinquent taxpayers; and
its practice of charging interest on the first of each month for
the entire month.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned their
claims with respect to lien docketing, satisfaction costs, and the
issue of interest.  On April 2, 2010, the Court granted GLS'
motion for summary judgment with respect to its right to charge
attorney fees and interest in the collection of the receivables,
and on August 25, 2010, the Court granted GLS's motion for summary
judgment with respect to lien costs, removing these claims from
the Pentlong Plaintiffs' case.  The Court has indicated that it
will undertake arguments over the reasonableness of attorney fees
at a later date.  GLS intends to seek decertification of the class
at that time as well.

The Pentlong Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this
matter.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Certifies Class in Teamsters Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund's
motion to certify the class in the Teamsters' lawsuit against
Dynex Capital, Inc., and its subsidiary, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary,
and the former president and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief
Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., are defendants in a
putative class action brought by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The original complaint, which was
filed on February 7, 2005, alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers
between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12 and MERIT
Series 13 securitization financing bonds, which are collateralized
by manufactured housing loans.  After a series of rulings by the
District Court and an appeal by the Company and MERIT, on
February 22, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against the Company and
MERIT.  Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008,
which essentially restated the same allegations as the original
complaint and added the Company's former president and current
Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer as defendants.
The District Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Teamster's seeks unspecified damages and
alleges, among other things, fraud and misrepresentations in
connection with the issuance of and subsequent reporting related
to the Bonds.

On March 7, 2011, the District Court granted Teamsters' motion to
certify the class for this action.  The Company has evaluated the
allegations made in the complaint, and continues to believe them
to be without merit and intends to defend itself against them
vigorously, including appealing the District Court's decision
certifying the class for this action.


FINISAR CORP: Accused of Violations of Federal Securities Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Derchi-Russo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case
11-cv-01252 (N.D. Calif. March 15, 2011), asserts violation of the
Federal Securities Laws.  The plaintiff alleges that the
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 partly to an inventory build by the
Company's customers.  Defendants further failed to disclose 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 February 14, 2011.

On March 8, 2011, after the market closed, Finisar issued a press
release announcing its third quarter fiscal year 2011 results,
which fell below analysts' estimates.  On this news, Finisar's
stock collapsed $15.43 per share to close at $24.61 per share
on March 9, 2010, a one-day decline of nearly 39% on high volume.

As a result of their purchases of Finisar common stock during the
Class Period, plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered
economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws.

Finisar designs, develops, manufactures and markets optical
subsystems and components.  Finisar is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California. Plaintiff Martin Derchi-Russo purchased the common
stock of Finisar between December 2, 2010, and March 8, 2011,
inclusive.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: dennish@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mfistel@holzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          E-mail: bob@dyerberens.com


FINISAR CORP: Faces Second Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris L. Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01278
(N.D. Calif. Mar. 16, 2011), asserts violations of the federal
securities laws.  Specifically, the plaintiff says that defendants
made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose: (1)
that the Company's recent revenue surge was partially due to an
inventory build by the Company's customers; (2) that, as
such, the Company's recent revenue surge was not due solely to
organic growth from real end-market demand; (3) that the Company
was experiencing increasing pricing pressures due to intense
competition that was forcing the Company to concede steep
discounts to retain customers; (4) that the Company was
experiencing a slowdown in its business from China; (5) that, as
such, the Company failed to disclose known trends and
uncertainties as required by SEC regulations about its revenue
growth; and (6) that, as a result, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading.

On March 8, 2011, after the close of the market, Finisar reported
its financial results for the 2010 fiscal third quarter and
disclosed that its revenues for the 2010 fiscal fourth quarter
ending April 30, 2011, would be negatively impacted by an
oversupply of inventory in the market, pricing pressures and a
slow down in business from China.

On this news, Finisar's stock declined $15.43 per share, nearly
39%, to close on March 9, 2011, at $24.61, on unusually heavy
volume.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Plaintiff Chris L. Wilson purchased Finisar securities during the
Class Period. Defendant Finisar isa Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 1389 Moffett Park Drive, in
Sunnyvale, California

Finisar designs, develops, manufactures, and markets optical
subsystems and components that are used to interconnect equipment
in short-distance local area networks ("LANs"), storage area
networks ("SANs"), longer distance metropolitan area networks
("MANs"), fiber-to-the-home networks, cable television networks,
and wide area networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Email: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847


GENERAL MOTORS: 207 Former Dealers Win Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for BlueMauMau, reports that a superior
court judge has certified a class action lawsuit brought by 207
former dealers seeking $750 million from General Motors of Canada
Limited and the law firm of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP,
alleging conflict of interest.

The lawsuit accuses GM of violating franchise laws and unfairly
forcing them to close.  Although GM retained Cassels Brock to act
on the dealers behalf while restructuring its debt, franchisees
allege the law firm was simultaneously acting for the government
of Canada in connection to the bailout.

The law firm of Sotos LLP, representing the dealers under lead
plaintiff Trillium Motor World Ltd., a former GM dealer in
Toronto, explained that one of the conditions for GM Canada to
access billions of dollars of government funding was the
elimination of a large number of GM dealers.  David Sterns, one of
the lead counsels for plaintiffs said the decision gives the
dealers a chance to mount a recovery of their own.  "The
elimination of the dealers was a man-made disaster for hundreds of
family-owned businesses forced to pay the price for GM's financial
problems," he said in a statement.

As background, in May 2009, when facing dire economic
circumstances in getting financial support, GM Canada issued
notices of non-renewal to more than 240 of its 750 franchisees.
The car dealership gave them six days to accept or reject an
agreement whereby they would receive a sum of money in exchange
for a speedy shutdown of their operations.  GM suggested it would
be forced to file for creditor protection under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act if the agreement was rejected.

After 85% accepted the wind-down offer, they then filed a class
action lawsuit that GM's strategy was designed to divide the
dealers, conceal GM's true financial position and prevent them
from preparing a united response.  In particular, the franchisees
alleged that General Motors breached its statutory duty of good
faith and fair dealing and franchisees' statutory right to
associate with one another.  They also accuse that GM's wind-down
agreements were subject to rescission because they were "franchise
agreements" within the meaning of Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act,
and GM failed to deliver disclosure statements to the franchisees.

As a result of this court decision, the Canadian law firm of
McCarthy Tetrault explained there were three important messages
franchisors should consider in dealing with franchisees.  First,
franchisor/franchisee disputes are well suited to class
certification.  "This is particularly so where the conduct at
issue is that of the franchisor treating all franchisees in
common," authors stated in their article.  And last, it states,
"An important and unilateral amendment to the franchise agreement
may well trigger an obligation to deliver a disclosure statement
under Ontario's franchise disclosure legislation, the Arthur
Wishart Act."

In his decision, Judge G.R. Strathy J. stated, "Judicial economy
will be promoted by the aggregation of the claims of the class
avoiding multiple trials and potential duplication of fact-
finding."  He also ruled that the case could proceed against the
Cassels Brock & Blackwell law firm, denying its motion to stay.
He explained that while the claims against GM Canada and Cassels
are different in nature and based on different causes of action,
"they arise out of the same factual matrix, namely the financial
plight of GMCL, the termination of 240 dealerships, the Wishart
Act and the events during the six days in May 2009," given to
franchisees to make their decision.

Judge Strathy said he saw no logic in putting the Cassels' claim
on the back burner for years, waiting for the claim against GM
Canada to work its way through the courts and then potentially
revising the claim against Cassels regardless of the outcome of
the other claim.  "This would not promote judicial economy -- on
the contrary, it would require much of the same fact-finding with
the potential for inconsistent results," he stated in his ruling.

Frank Zaid of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, counsel to General
Motors Canada said the dealership is considering filing an appeal
in the case.  GM and its law firm declined to make any other
comments regarding the judge's decision on allowing the class
certification.

Mark Young, managing partner for Cassels Brock & Blackwell stated
that because this was a matter before the courts they would not be
commenting at this time.


HEALTHMARKETS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Plea in Hopkins Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HealthMarkets, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a plaintiff's motion
for certification relating to a putative class action pending in
California, according to the Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and MEGA were named as
defendants in a putative class action (Jerry T. Hopkins,
individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v.
HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133.  Plaintiff alleges
invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section
630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy
arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and/or
recorded the telephone conversations of California residents
without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent.
Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the suit as a California
class action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  On
December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the
class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place.  On
March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was
denied.  On August 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which motion is pending.  Discovery is ongoing and
no trial date has been set.

The Company believes that resolution of this proceeding, after
consideration of applicable reserves and potentially available
insurance coverage benefits, will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition and
results of operations.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
JPMorgan Chase bank repeatedly demands documentation it already
has, promises "illusory loan modification(s)" it never intends to
grant, charges "excessive, unlawful and unreasonable fees," and
forecloses illegally "based on mortgagors' failure to meet
impossible and shifting demands."

A copy of the Complaint in Montez v. Chase Home Finance LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00530 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/18/JPMorgan.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon T. Hritz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P
          610 Anacapa Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: shritz@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Orbist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


KADANT INC: Continues to Discuss Resolution of Former Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. is continuing discussions with plaintiffs in several
class action lawsuits on potential alternative dispute resolution
or other settlement of these matters, according to the Company's
March 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiaries were previously named as
co-defendants, together with Composites LLC and two other
defendants, in several state class action complaints and one
federal class action complaint filed in 2008 and 2009, as
disclosed in its prior filings.  These complaints sought to
recover damages allegedly associated with the composite building
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.  This litigation has been dismissed, in the case of
the federal class action, and voluntarily withdrawn without
prejudice by the state plaintiffs.  The Company continues to
discuss with these plaintiffs potential alternative dispute
resolution or other settlement of these matters.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will reach a resolution on terms
satisfactory to the parties, or that these or other plaintiffs
will not file new complaints against the Company or the other
parties indemnified by Composites LLC.  While the Company believes
any such asserted or possible claims against it or other
indemnified parties would be without merit, the cost of litigation
and the outcome, including any settlement, could adversely affect
its consolidated financial results.


KAWASAKI MOTOR: Recalls 3,500 Gasoline-Powered Backpack Blowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kawasaki Motor Corp. U.S. A., of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,400 Gasoline-Powered Backpack Blowers
in the United States  and 100 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The gasoline tank can split and leak fuel, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves gasoline-powered blowers sold under the
Kawasaki brand name.  Model and serial numbers are printed on the
product's blower housing.  Backpack blowers included in this
recall have a white, translucent fuel tank. The following model
blowers are included in this recall:

     Model                       Serial
     -----                       ------
KRB750A-A4   12907 12955 12980 12985 12996 13051 13054 13063
              13103 13113 13116 13117 13119 13120 13121 13124
              13130 13131 13132 13133 13134 13135 13137 13138
              13140 13141 13142 13145 13147 13152 13159 13192
              13193 13246 13247 13248 KRB750B-A3, KRB750B-A4,

KRB750B-A5
KRB750B-B1
(Canada Only) 10380 to 11339, 11628 to 12107, 12156 to 12635,
               13380 to 13529, 13536 to 13543, 13548 to 13859,
               14077 to 14388, 14390, 14398 to 14400, 14411 to
               14556

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11174.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
authorized service dealers nationwide from August 2008 through
February 2011 for between $420 and $490.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the nearest dealer for a free replacement fuel
tank.  For additional information, contact Kawasaki Motor toll-
free at (877) 364-6404 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kawpowr.com/ Consumers can also write to the firm at:
Kawasaki Motor Corp. U.S.A.  Consumer Service Department, 5080
36th St. SE, Grand Rapids, Mich. 49546.


KIT DIGITAL: Defending Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIT digital, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action
lawsuit entitled, "Julie Vittengl et al.  vs. ROO HD, Inc.," which
is pending in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County, according
to the Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In November 2007, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ROO HD,
Inc., currently KIT HD, Inc., was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit.  The suit, brought by four former employees
of Wurld Media, Inc., purportedly on behalf of themselves and
"others similarly situated," claims that ROO HD's acquisition of
certain assets of Wurld was a fraudulent conveyance and that ROO
HD is the alter-ego of Wurld.  The plaintiffs seek the appointment
of a receiver to take charge of the Company's property in
constructive trust for plaintiffs and payment of plaintiffs'
unpaid wages and costs of suit, both in an unspecified dollar
amount.  KIT HD filed its answer to the complaint in January 2008.
In December 2009, plaintiffs served an amended complaint, dropping
the class action allegations and adding the Company as a
defendant; otherwise, it is essentially the same as its
predecessor.  In February 2010, the Company and KIT HD answered
the amended complaint, and the case may shortly enter into
discovery.  The Company says it believes that the suit is without
merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend "Martinez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit against Joe's Crab Shack, Inc., filed in
California by Roberto Martinez, according to the Company's
March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 6, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit against
Joe's Crab Shack, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of
California in Los Angeles County by Roberto Martinez.  On or about
March 24, 2008, the Company was also added as a Defendant as it
owned the Joe's Crab Shack California locations during a portion
of the relevant time period subject to plaintiff's purported class
action lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
Joe's Crab Shack violated the California Labor Code by
misclassifying managers as exempt and, therefore, not properly
paying overtime wages, and failing to provide mandatory meal or
rest breaks or payment in lieu of the break.  The Company denies
the claims in the litigation and is vigorously defending this
matter.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2006, as part of a strategic
review of the Company's operations, the Company initiated a plan
to divest certain restaurants, including 136 Joe's units. In
November 2006, the Company completed the sale of 120 Joe's.
Subsequently, several additional locations were added to the
Company's disposal plan.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. continues to defend itself against an
employee class action complaint related to the payment of wages,
according to the Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended January 30, 2011.

On September 7, 2010, a former hourly employee filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court For the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division entitled Lydia
Brown v. lululemon athletica inc.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company requires employees to work "off the clock" without
compensation.  The plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and other
putative class members back wages, interest, attorney fees and
costs, and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  On February 24,
2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claims in their entirety without prejudice.  The
plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint on or
before March 17, 2011.

The Company continues to deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend the matter.

lululemon athletica is a designer and retailer of technical
athletic apparel operating primarily in North America and
Australia.  It offers a comprehensive line of apparel and
accessories including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets
designed for athletic pursuits such as yoga, running and general
fitness.  As of January 30, 2011, the Company's branded apparel
was principally sold through 137 stores that are located in
Canada, the United States and Australia.


MANNKIND CORP: Continues to Defend AFREZZA-Related Suits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation is defending itself against several class
action complaints filed in California on behalf of certain
purchasers of its common stock, according to the Company's
March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Following the Company's receipt of the Complete Response letter
from the United States Food and Drug Administration regarding the
new drug application for AFREZZA, the Company's ultra rapid-acting
insulin product, in January 2011 and the subsequent decline of the
price of the Company's common stock, several complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.  The
complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and have been brought as purported shareholder
class actions.  In general, the complaints allege that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects for
AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  The complaints have been transferred to
a single court and consolidated for all purposes.  The Company
expects the court to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and
to order the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint.  The
Company says it will vigorously defend against the claims
advanced.


MARUYAMA U.S.: Recalls 18,750 Backpack Blowers and Mister Dusters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maruyama U.S. Inc., of Denton, Texas, announced a voluntary recall
of about 18,000 gasoline-powered backpack blowers and mister
dusters in the United States and 750 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The gasoline tank can split and leak fuel, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

Maruyama has received 25 reports of leaking tanks.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves gasoline-powered blowers and mister dusters
sold under the Maruyama brand name.  Model numbers are printed on
the product's recoil starter.  Backpack blowers and mister dusters
included in this recall have a white, translucent fuel tank. Model
and serial numbers included in the recall are:

         Model Number     Serial Number
         ------------     -------------
           BL5100CA     30821911 - 60922200
           BL5100-SP    80924201 - 80924650
           BL5100-HA    51021391 - 81021310
           BL8200       50920961 - 80924200
           BL8200-HA    70925031 - 90921910
           BL8101       10921151 - 10922150
           MD155DX-US   90922861 - 90924610
           MD155DX-US   O0920231 - O0920530
           MD155DX-CA2  O0920531 - O0921130
           MD159D       60822621 - 80821300

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11175.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
Authorized service dealers nationwide from April 2008 through
December 2010 for between $320 and $820.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the nearest dealer for a free replacement fuel
tank.  For additional information, contact Maruyama toll-free at
(866) 783-7400 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.maruyama-us.com/


MEDCO HEALTH: CalPERS Not Part of 2002 Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Kasler, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that New
Jersey drug company Medco Health Solutions Inc. on March 18
acknowledged that it paid Alfred Villalobos, the man in the middle
of the CalPERS bribery scandal, more than $4 million to work on
issues relating to the pension fund.

CalPERS last week dumped Medco as administrator of a drug-benefit
contract after the release of a report saying the New Jersey
company hired Mr. Villalobos to help win the contract back in
2004.  The day Medco was awarded the contract, the company gave
Villalobos a $1 million check, the last installment on the $4
million agreement, according to the report by Washington lawyer
Philip Khinda.

But in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Medco said it
hired Mr. Villalobos "primarily" for his advice with a major audit
by CalPERS in connection with previous work Medco had done for
CalPERS.

The audit was "lengthy, contentious and highly detailed," the
company said in its filing.  "The audit was successfully concluded
and the outstanding issues were resolved."

The company acknowledged that it continued paying Villalobos
$20,000 a month for consulting work "largely unrelated to
CalPERS."

Medco added that it just received a subpoena from the SEC on the
Villalobos matter.  It earlier disclosed receiving a phone call
from the federal agency.  The California attorney general is also
investigating.

Mr. Villalobos was sued by state officials last year.  They
accused him of bribing former CalPERS Chief Executive
Fred Buenrostro and others to win business for his investment
clients.  The lawsuit doesn't mention Medco.

In the SEC filing, Medco doesn't go into detail about the audit.
But in 2002, two years before it hired Mr. Villalobos, the company
paid $42 million to settle class action claims that the company
had pocketed huge rebates from drug makers -- rebates that should
have gone to employees of the health plans that hired the company.
At the time, the company was called Merck-Medco and was a
subsidiary of drug maker Merck & Co.

CalPERS spokeswoman Pat Macht said the pension fund wasn't
involved in that settlement but did recover money from the company
as a result of an audit.  She wasn't immediately able to provide
details of that settlement.

Also on March 18, a retired state worker sued Medco and several
former CalPERS officials in Sacramento Superior Court, claiming
that he and others were overcharged for drugs by Medco.  The suit
says Medco's hiring of Villalobos violated state law and as a
result, workers "have paid excessive amounts of money for their
medications purchased through Medco."

Medco and CalPERS had no comment on the suit.


MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Continues to Defend "Knight" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corp. remains a defendant in a purported
class action entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom Communications Corp.,
according to Mediacom LLC's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

Mediacom LLC is wholly-owned by Mediacom Communications
Corporation.

The suit was filed on March 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint asserts that
the potential class is comprised of all persons who purchased
premium cable services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed
by MCC.  The plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "tied" the
rental of cable boxes to the provision of premium cable services
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The
plaintiff also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  MCC was served with
the complaint on April 16, 2010.

MCC believes they have substantial defenses to the claims asserted
in the complaint, and they intend to defend the action vigorously.
If MCC is not successful in this litigation, it may have to
distribute cash to MCC in order for MCC to pay any damages in
regard to this litigation.


MEDIACOM LLC: Still Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Final judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, on a
jury-rendered verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg against
Mediacom LLC remains pending, according to the Company's March 17,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleges that the company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place Mediacom's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding
the possession of agreements or permission from other third
parties.  While the parties continue to contest liability, there
also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based
on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.  Before
trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of
$42.0 million in compensatory damages.  Notwithstanding the
verdict in the trial, the company remains unable to reasonably
determine the amount of Mediacom's final liability in this
lawsuit.  Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its
liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to
$2.3 million.  This estimate did not include any estimate of
damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive
damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives. On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000. The Court did not enter a final judgment on
this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at
this time be judicially collected. Although the Company believes
that the particular circumstances of each class member may result
in a different measure of damages for each member, if the same
measure of compensatory damages was used for each member, the
aggregate compensatory damages would be approximately $16.2
million plus the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.  The Company is
vigorously defending against the claims made by the other members
of the class, including filing and responding to post trial
motions, which include filing a motion to decertify the class and
responding to the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, and
preparing for subsequent trials, and an appeal, if necessary.

The Company says it believes that the amount of actual liability
would not have a significant effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations, cash flows or business. There can
be no assurance, however, that the actual liability ultimately
determined for all members of the class would not exceed the
Company's estimated range or any amount derived from the verdict
rendered on March 18, 2009. The Company says it has tendered the
lawsuit to its insurance carrier for defense and indemnification.
The carrier has agreed to defend the Company under a reservation
of rights, and a declaratory judgment action is pending regarding
the carrier's defense and coverage responsibilities.


MEDIACOM LLC: Inks Settlement of "Going Private" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC has entered into a settlement of class action
lawsuits related to a proposal to transform it into a private
company, according to the Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Mediacom LLC is wholly-owned by Mediacom Communications
Corporation (MCC).

Between June 3, 2010 and June 10, 2010, three purported class
actions lawsuits were filed against Mediacom and its individual
directors, including Rocco B. Commisso, Mediacom's founder,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, all in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, under the captions Colleen Witmer v.
Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al., J. Malcolm Gray v.
Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al. and Haverhill
Retirement System v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al.
The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated for all purposes in
the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption In Re Mediacom
Communications Corporation Shareholders Litigation. On January 4,
2011, a Second Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed that alleges, among other things, that the
defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr. Commisso's
proposal to take Mediacom private, including among other things
their fiduciary duty of disclosure, and that Mediacom, Mr.
Commisso and JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such
breaches. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, rescission of the
transaction or rescissory damages, and an accounting of all
damages.

On November 18, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Rocco B.
Commisso, Mediacom's founder, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange
County, under the caption Wendy Kwait v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr. Commisso's
proposal to take Mediacom private and that Mediacom and Mr.
Commisso aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory
damages.

On November 29, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Thomas Turberg v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Mediacom in connection
with Mr. Commisso's proposal to take Mediacom private and that
Mediacom and JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such
breaches. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages.

On December 10, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Ella Mae Pease v. Rocco
Commisso, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr. Commisso's
proposal to take Mediacom private; that Mediacom, Mr. Commisso and
JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such breaches; and that
the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory
damages, and an accounting of all damages, profits and special
benefits.

The director defendants, Mediacom, JMC Communications LLC and Mr.
Commisso, as defendants in these actions, have reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in all of these actions
providing for the settlement of the actions on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in a memorandum of
understanding, which terms include, but are not limited to, a
settlement payment made by Mediacom on behalf of and for the
benefit of the parties to the actions in the amount of $0.25 per
share for each share of Mediacom common stock held by the
plaintiff class as of March 4, 2011. If the settlement becomes
effective, the settlement payment to the plaintiff class will be
reduced by any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the
execution of definitive settlement documentation and the approval
of the Delaware Court. The Company may have to distribute cash to
MCC to partially fund the settlement. Upon effectiveness of the
settlement, the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims under federal and state law that were or could have been
asserted in the actions or which arise out of or relate to the
Going Private Transaction will be released.

The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events and transactions
complained of in the aforementioned actions or that they have
engaged in any wrongdoing. The defendants have entered into the
MOU to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and
distraction of further litigation.


MEDIFAST INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Medifast, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action (Civil Action No.: 11-cv-0720) pending in the
District of Maryland is on behalf of a class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Medifast securities
during the period from March 4, 2010 through and including
March 10, 2011.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Medifast securities during
the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until May 17, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint
you.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

Medifast is a Maryland corporation that combines physician-
supervised weight loss programs with nutritional supplements and
multidisciplinary patient education programs.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company was improperly recognizing certain expenses; (2) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
results were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 11, 2011, the Company disclosed that it would be forced
to delay the filing of its fiscal 2010 financial results and its
Annual Report.  According to the limited information provided by
the Company regarding the delay, Medifast requires additional time
to complete its year-end financial statements due to the need to
review the recognition of certain expenses in prior periods.  On
this news, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per share, or more than
24%, to close at $16.63 per share.

The Pomerantz Firm is a law firm specializing in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  It has
offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C.,

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle
         Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
         888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Fights Insurers Over Fee Award in AMICAS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated asserts all of its rights under its
applicable insurance policies, which it believes cover the claims
and expenses it incurred or incurred by its subsidiary, AMICAS, in
connection with the attorney fee award in the AMICAS stockholder
class action, according to the Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with AMICAS' proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo,
LLC (the "Thoma Bravo Merger").  A second similar action was filed
in the same court in February 2010 and consolidated with the first
action.  In March 2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma
Bravo Merger and agreed to be acquired by the Company, the court
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently, counsel
to the plaintiffs filed an application for approximately $5
million of attorneys' fees for its work on this case, which fee
petition AMICAS opposed.  The Company retained litigation counsel
to defend against the fee petition.  On December 23, 2010, the
court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3.2 million in attorneys'
fees and costs.  AMICAS has filed a notice of appeal from this
judgment, and the plaintiffs have cross-appealed.  The Company
previously tendered the defense in this matter to its appropriate
insurers, who have provided coverage against the claims asserted
against AMICAS.  After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award
decision, the applicable insurer denied policy coverage for
approximately $2.5 million of the fee award.  The Company does not
believe that the insurer's denial has merit and has retained
counsel to contest it.  The Company says it will vigorously assert
all of its rights under its applicable insurance policies, which
the Company believes cover the claims and expenses incurred by
AMICAS or the Company in connection with the fee award.  However,
the Company says an adverse outcome could negatively impact its
financial condition.


MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend "Brake Products" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Midas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit over its brake products, according to the Company's
March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011.

The Company is currently involved in a class action lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
in June 2006 that alleges that certain franchised California Midas
shops intentionally issued invoices to certain brake customers
that incorrectly indicated that the customers had received Midas-
branded brake products when, in fact, they had received inferior
non-Midas brake products. MDS denies the plaintiffs' allegations
and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. MDS has thus far been
successful in challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs'
claims. The plaintiffs' third amended complaint was dismissed in
February 2009. The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in
March of 2009. The Company continues to believe that the
allegations are without merit. However, there can be no assurance
the Company will prevail in such proceedings. An adverse ruling
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition and results of operations.


MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Franchisee Class Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed against
Midas, Inc. by certain parties in Canada, according to the
Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice by two Canadian Midas
franchisees. The plaintiffs alleged various violations of the
Midas Franchise and Trademark Agreement and applicable law and
sought class certification and monetary damages of approximately
$168 million. The class certification hearing took place in
February 2009 and the court released its certification ruling on
March 26, 2009. Of the many claims asserted by the plaintiff, the
only claim for which class certification was granted was the issue
of whether Midas Canada breached its common law and statutory
duties of good faith and fair dealing when it implemented its new
supply chain program in 2003. All other causes of action were
rejected by the court. The Company is currently in the process of
compiling historical documents as a result of the plaintiffs'
discovery request. The Company continues to believe this lawsuit
is without merit. However, there can be no assurance the Company
will prevail in such proceedings. An adverse ruling could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Stock Option Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself and certain
of its current and former officers and directors against
stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits
pending in California, according to the Company's March 16, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated.  Claims were
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The allegations set forth in
the complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's
press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's
financial statements could not be relied on due to the Company's
historical stock option practices and related accounting.  The
complaints sought to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief.  In November 2010,
the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave
final approval to a stipulated $10 million settlement agreement,
which was covered by the Company's director and officer insurance
policies.

Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of
2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits,
and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery
continues in these matters.  The Company and plaintiffs in the
federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but
have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Paid $22.4 Million Under 2004 Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company paid out approximately
$22.4 million in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 to settle a
class action lawsuit initially filed in 2004, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially
filed on September 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The California state
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The court
additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging
fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company.
The California Insurance Department intervened in this case
asserting that the Company violated California insurance laws.
The parties to this case became involved in court-ordered
mediation and ongoing negotiations.

On February 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in
intervention providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17
million as well as approximately $5 million for legal expenses
which were included in the Company's legal accrual provision at
December 31, 2009.  The settlement agreement was given final court
approval at a Fairness Hearing on August 20, 2010.  Including
attorney's fees, policy benefits and other considerations, the
Company paid out approximately $22.4 million in the third and
fourth quarters of 2010.

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


NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a case captioned In Re National Western Life Insurance
Deferred Annuities Litigation in California, according to the
Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company is currently a defendant in a second class action
lawsuit pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The case is titled In Re
National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation.
The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.  On July 12, 2010, the Court
certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO
allegation and a California class under all of the remaining
causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this
cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted
claims.  No amounts have been provided in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2010 for
this matter.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Still Defends Class Action Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless Inc. is still defending itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2011.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. The suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or other relief on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to August 7, 2008. A
second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al. v.
NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during an extended class period, from November 27,
2006 through August 7, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Court
issued an Order consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead
plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act. On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss that Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court
granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice,
permitting the lead plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. On
March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the Motion now
has been fully briefed and is under submission to the court. At
this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of
this litigation.

The Company says it has not recorded any significant accruals for
contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on the
Company's belief that a liability, while possible, is not
probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated
at this time.


OLD SECOND BANCORP: Defends ERISA Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Second Bancorp, Inc., is defending itself against a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois commenced by a former employee, according to
the Company's March 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and
Trust alleging that the Company, the Old Second National Bank, the
Employee Benefits Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and
certain of the Company's officers and employees violated certain
disclosure requirements and fiduciary duties established under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.  The
complaint seeks equitable and as-of-yet unquantified monetary
relief.  The Company believes that it, its affiliates and its
officers and employees have acted, and continue to act, in
compliance with ERISA law with respect to these matters, and
continues to explore all available alternatives in response to the
complaint.


ONVIA INC: Awaits Final Resolution of Appeals in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia Inc. continues to defend a securities class action in New
York as the settlement agreement reached in the matter undergoes
an appeal process, according to the Company's March 17, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter
of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, or IPO, Credit Suisse First
Boston, or CSFB.  The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6,
2000.  In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed.  The complaint
charged defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that failed to
disclose and contained false and misleading statements regarding
certain commissions purported to have been received by the
underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in
connection with their allocation of shares in the offering.  The
complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees.  This action is being coordinated with
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies.  At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six
"focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.  The Court indicated
that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide
strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's 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 Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  Objectors to the
settlement filed six notices of appeal and one petition seeking
permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
If the settlement does not survive appeal and Onvia is found
liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential
damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be
greater than Onvia's insurance coverage, and whether such damages
would have a material impact on its results of operations or
financial condition in any future period.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Flynn, writing for The Republican, reports that a federal
judge on March 18 refused to throw out a class action lawsuit
against Prudential Insurance Co. of America filed by parents of
Belchertown Marine Jeffrey M. Lucey and five other deceased
veterans.

Following a hearing in U.S. District Court, Judge Michael A.
Ponsor ruled that lawyers for Prudential had failed to show the
case should be dismissed before trial.

"Keep in mind, we're at a very early stage here," Judge Ponsor
said, after hearing arguments from Prudential's lawyer, Michael K.
Isenman, that the lawsuit had no legal basis.

"I'm not saying it's going to be an easy case, but the burden (of
proof to get the case thrown out) is quite high" for Prudential,
he added.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2009 against the New Jersey-based
insurance company, claiming it was profiting off dead soldiers'
policies while paying paltry amounts to the families.

The lead defendants are Kevin and Joyce Lucey, whose 23-year-old
committed suicide in 2004 after returning from Iraq.  Parents of
five other soldiers who died in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere
also joined the suit.

The debate center on the use of so-called Alliance Accounts, which
are similar to checking accounts and come with a booklet of
drafts.  The policy allows families to write a check for the full
amount of the payout, or take payments in 36 monthly installments.

The lawsuit, filed by Conway lawyer Christobal Bonifaz, claims
Prudential reaped more than $100 million by collecting 5.7% on
interest on deferred policy payments while paying out only 1
percent to families.

In arguing for dismissal of the lawsuit, Mr. Isenman said interest
rates and other policy terms are clearly spelled out, with
payments to families guaranteed while Prudential assumes the
investment risks.

"One doesn't have a right to the profits a bank makes just because
one has money" in the bank, Mr. Isenman said.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Michael Von Loewenfeldt, said the
insurance giant's checkbook system was a profit-making strategy
that relied on the reluctance of families to write a check to
themselves for the death of their son or daughter.

"They realized the could make a lot more money if they started
giving out checkbooks instead of checks," he said.

The Luceys said they took about $53,000 out of the account after
their son's death in 2004.  In 2009, they withdrew the remaining
$197,000 after learning they could earn a higher yield, they said.

In another development Friday, the Cape Cod chapter of Veterans
for Peace renamed itself for Jeffrey Lucey.

The group, which is campaigning for better care for soldiers with
post-traumatic stress, held a service at Barnstable High School in
Hyannis.  Mr. Lucey's parents were scheduled to attend.


REWARDS GROUP: Investors File Class Action
------------------------------------------
ABC Perth reports that a Melbourne law firm is representing
thousands of investors in two potential class actions against
timber plantations near Gingin and Dandaragan.

The Rewards Group and its teak, sandalwood and timber plantations
in WA are at the center of one class action.

The company went into receivership last May after raising
$250 million from investors.

The other class action is against Environmental Forest Farms
Management, which owns nine paulownia plantations in Gingin, north
of Perth.

Ron Willemsen is handling both cases and he says the companies
have failed to deliver on the returns they promised investors.

"There were ongoing collections of money from people including
existing investors and new investors over quite a number of years
when the performance of the plantations was very poor and the
investors never stood to make the returns that they were promised
at the beginning," he said.

The Rewards Group has been put up for sale.


SECURITIES AMERICA: Judge Junks $21-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Dallas has
rejected a deal that would have allowed brokerage Securities
America Inc. to pay $21 million to settle a class action lawsuit
alleging that the company didn't do proper due diligence on
millions of dollars in investments it sold that later proved
worthless.

U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson declined to approve the
settlement, which had been worked out between the Nebraska-based
company and plaintiffs' attorneys.  The settlement would have paid
investors who lost a combined $400 million only five cents on the
dollar.  Judge Furgeson also refused to halt arbitration cases by
investors who want to try to recoup their losses outside of the
class action suit.

The investments in question were purchased through Securities
America between 2003 and 2009.  They involved shale gas ventures
through Provident Royalties LLC and debt sales sponsored by
Medical Capital Holdings Inc.  Both entities have since been
charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"We've got a terrible situation here," Judge Furgeson said during
the March 18 hearing.  "You have $400 million in losses and the
chance of that being recouped is zero.  Something terrible
happened here, and we're all trying to pick up the pieces."

Securities America, and its parent, Minneapolis-based financial
planner Ameriprise Financial Inc., have said that Securities
America could go out of business if the $21 million settlement
wasn't approved and it had to face potentially larger losses.

"This settlement gives Securities America the greatest chance to
survive," testified Kelly Windorski, chief financial officer of
Securities America Financial Corp.

Daniel Girard, the lead plaintiff attorney in the class action,
also told the judge during the day-long hearing that the
settlement was the best result under the circumstances.

"What we're trying to do is create a little bit of magic to keep
(Securities America) in business," he said.

But investors' attorneys argued that Securities America's parent,
Ameriprise, is on solid financial footing and would always keep
the unit capitalized.  They also said that even if Securities
America filed for bankruptcy protection it wouldn't necessarily
mean that the company wouldn't be able to compensate investors at
a rate higher than five cents on the dollar.

"The claim that this is all they can pay is gamesmanship, pure and
simple, said Hugh Berkson, a Cleveland attorney who represents 54
households who lost $19 million in the alleged scams.

Beyond the company's financial condition, attorneys opposing the
settlement argued that approving the settlements and stopping the
arbitration cases would set a dangerous precedent by allowing
Securities America to circumvent federal regulations.  Securities
cases are generally fought in arbitration.  Regulators pursuing
complaints against Securities America in Montana and Massachusetts
also opposed approving the settlement.  A representative of the
North American Securities Administrators Association spoke on
their behalf at the hearing.

"It's a good day for investors, and I hope Ameriprise steps up and
fulfills the obligations of its subsidiary," said Joe Peiffer, a
New Orleans attorney who represents 16 investors who lost money in
the alleged scams and want to deal with it through arbitration.


TARGET CORP: Sued for Recording Customers Personal Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eyad O. Akel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01274 (N.D. Calif.
March 16, 2011), accuses defendants of engaging in a pattern of
unlawful and deceptive business practices by requesting and
recording personal identification information, including zip
codes, from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in
defendants' retail establishments, in violation of California
Civil Code Section 1747.08.

California Civil Code Section 1747.08 prohibits merchants from:
(1) requesting personal identification information for a customer
paying for goods with a credit card, and then recording that
information upon the credit card transactions, or (2) requiring as
a condition to accepting the credit card as payment the cardholder
to provide his personal identification information which the
retailer causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the
credit card transaction form.

Plaintiff says defendants do not disclose their true intention
behind requesting customers' zip codes, including that it will be
used to obtain customers' home addresses, or shared with third
parties.  Plaintiff says that at least on one occasion within the
last 12 months, he went shopping at one of defendants' stores
located in the state of California, and that as part of
defendants' policy, the cashier requested his zip code without
informing him what it was for, and that the cashier recorded his
zip code into an electronic cash register at the checkout counter.

Defendants operate retail stores throughout the United States,
including California.  Plaintiff is a resident of California and
entered into credit card transactions at one or more of
defendants' retail locations in California.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990


TELUS CORP: British Columbia Customers Can Pursue Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schmidt, writing for Postmedia News, reports that
disgruntled customers in British Columbia can pursue class-action
lawsuits against big companies even if they've signed away that
right in consumer contracts, Canada's top court ruled on March 18.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada overruled a B.C.
Court of Appeal decision in part by ruling the province's
consumer-protection law allows customers to get around an
arbitration clause in service contracts if they feel they've
endured deceptive business practices.

These clauses, commonly used by cellphone companies, are designed
to shield corporations from class-action proceedings.

"That is a great day and a great win for British Columbia
consumers and the Canadian consumer," said lawyer Arthur Grant,
who is representing Michelle Seidel of Vancouver in her quest to
certify a class action against Telus Corp. over how it calculates
airtime for its cellphone customers.

The decision is a loss for Telus, which argued its B.C. customers
waive rights to pursue any class action when they sign a contract
directing disputes into private arbitration.

The Vancouver-based company also asked the court to come out in
favor of arbitration broadly, as the Supreme Court had done in a
2007 in a high-profile case between a Quebec consumer group and
Dell Computing Corp.

But Friday's ruling makes clear B.C.'s consumer-protection law
permits customers to pursue a class action in cases of alleged
deceptive business practices regardless of the fine print in
service contracts.

The decision also raises questions about arbitration clauses in
consumer contracts.

Now, consumers in Canada's four largest provinces can turn to the
courts if they feel they've been victims of deceptive business
practices.  Ontario, Quebec and Alberta have all passed provincial
laws in recent years that explicitly prevent companies from using
arbitration clauses to shield companies from class actions --
effectively negating the effect of the top court's 2007 decision
in favor of Dell.

In the absence of such explicit language in B.C.'s Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), the majority in
this case found that since the B.C. law is "all about consumer
protection," its terms "should be interpreted generously in favour
of the consumer."

"Private arbitral justice, because of its contractual origins, is
necessarily limited.  As the BPCPA recognizes, some types of
relief can only be made available from a superior court,"
Justice Ian Binnie, writing for the majority, wrote.

And from the perspective of B.C.'s consumer-protection law, "
'private, confidential and binding arbitration' will almost
certainly inhibit rather than promote wide publicity (and thus
deterrence) or defective and/or unconscionable commercial conduct.
It is clearly open to a legislature to utilize private consumers
as effective enforcement partners operating independently of the
formal enforcement bureaucracy and to conclude that the most
effective form is not a 'private and confidential' alternative
dispute resolution behind closed doors, but very public and well-
publicized proceedings in a court of law," the majority decision
states.

Justices Louis LeBel and Marie Deschamps, writing for the
minority, disagreed.

They said that without "a clear statement from the legislature of
an intention to the contrary," a consumer claim must first go to
arbitration.

The dissenting judges also weighed in on the arbitration process
more generally by characterizing Justice Binnie's interpretation
as an "inexplicable throwback to a time when courts monopolized
decision making and arbitrators were treated as second-class
adjudicators."  They also said Justice Binnie's reasons appear to
embrace an "undercurrent of hostility toward arbitration."

Justice Binnie rejected this characterization.

"Respectfully, I believe the Court's job is neither to promote nor
detract from private and confidential arbitration.  The Court's
job is to give effect to the intent of the legislature as
manifested in the provisions of its statutes."

Lawyer Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre, said the split on Canada's top court is
revealing.

"I wonder if the court itself might have been a little bit taken
aback by the legislative response to their Dell decision," said
Mr. Janigan, referring to provincial laws in Ontario, Alberta and
Quebec.

"And if you read the dissenting judgment, it seems to still
believe in the merits of arbitration to avoid litigation.  I think
the dissenting decision to some extent is looking at arbitration
in the ideal whereas the majority judgment is looking at what it's
like on the ground for the consumer."

Added Mr. Janigan: "I'm certain they are hesitant of attempting to
take away rights that have been given to consumers in individual
provinces to pursue specific remedies.  On the other hand, they
always have their eye on ways in which unnecessary litigation can
be avoided.  So I think it's a sort of a collision of those two
values there that you see in those two judgments, and consumer
protection narrowly prevailed."

In a statement, Telus tried to underplay the decision, saying "it
was a divided decision by the Supreme Court that simply moves this
suit to the certification stage."  And the suit, which has not yet
been certified, "has no merit," the company said.

Seidel signed a contract with Telus in 2000 for cellphone
services.  The contract, which was subsequently renewed, contained
a standard arbitration clause requiring Telus customers to waive
any rights to participate in a class proceeding.

But when Ms. Seidel thought she was being overcharged for her
cellphone service and should only be charged for "airtime" or
"actual talking time," the Vancouverite turned to the B.C. courts
in 2005 to try to get a class-action certified against Telus.

Ms. Seidel alleged the telecom company unlawfully charged her and
others for time before their phones engaged the Telus cellular
network as well as the ring time -- in breach of contract and in
breach of B.C.'s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Telus, which starts billing airtime from the moment network
resources are used, was unsuccessful in arguing for a stay of the
action at B.C.'s lower court, but won on appeal at the B.C. Court
of Appeal in 2009 to punt the case to arbitration.

Ms. Seidel appealed to Canada's top court.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and justices Morris Fish,
Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell signed on to the majority
decision.

Justices Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron concurred with the
minority decision.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation continues to defend itself in a
consolidated multidistrict class action litigation pending in a
California court, according to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form
10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the monthly distribution period from February 1, 2011 to
February 28, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were named
as defendants in the consolidated multidistrict litigation In Re:
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation (United States
District Court, Central District of California) seeking damages
and injunctive relief as a result of alleged sudden unintended
acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  A parallel
action was filed against TMCC and certain affiliates on March 12,
2010 by the Orange County District Attorney.  On August 2,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation that does not name TMCC as a defendant.
On November 17, 2010, the court ordered that all omitted claims
and theories are deemed dismissed without prejudice.  In addition,
the court has permitted alleged classes of foreign plaintiffs to
file complaints naming TMCC and related entities as defendants.
TMCC also remains a defendant in the state court action filed by
the Orange County District Attorney.

Toyota Motor Credit (TMCC) is the US financing arm of Toyota
Financial Services, which is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor
Corporation, the world's largest carmaker. TMCC provides retail
leasing, retail and wholesale sales financing, and other financial
services to Toyota and Lexus dealers and their customers for the
purchase of new and used cars and trucks. It offers similar
services to Toyota industrial equipment dealers. TMCC, which
underwrites and services the finance contracts, operates three
regional customer service centers and some 30 dealer sales and
service branches across the US and Puerto Rico.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal in Bondholder Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the bondholder class action captioned Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., remains pending,
according to the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-D filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from February 1, 2011 to February 28, 2011.

TMCC and certain affiliates had also been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
the defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit (TMCC) is the US financing arm of Toyota
Financial Services, which is a subsidiary of Toyota Motor
Corporation, the world's largest carmaker. TMCC provides retail
leasing, retail and wholesale sales financing, and other financial
services to Toyota and Lexus dealers and their customers for the
purchase of new and used cars and trucks. It offers similar
services to Toyota industrial equipment dealers. TMCC, which
underwrites and services the finance contracts, operates three
regional customer service centers and some 30 dealer sales and
service branches across the US and Puerto Rico.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Larsen" Suit Set for March 2012 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a putative class action lawsuit against UnionBanCal
Corporation is currently scheduled for March 2012, according to
the Company's March 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Cynthia Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A.: This putative class action was
filed on July 15, 2009 by Union Bank customer Cynthia Larsen. In
October of 2009, the action was transferred from the Northern
District of California to the Multidistrict Litigation action
(MDL) in the Southern District of Florida. Omnibus motions to
dismiss the complaints in many of the suits included in the MDL,
including Larsen, were denied on March 12, 2010. Plaintiffs allege
that, by posting charges to their accounts in order from highest
to lowest amount, the Bank charged them more overdraft fees than
it would have charged them had the Bank posted items to their
accounts in chronological order.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts common-law causes of action for
breach of contract and breach of duty of an implied duty of good
faith, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
statutory violation of the California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, return
or refund of all improper overdraft fees, disgorgement of profits
derived from the Bank's alleged conduct, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative
class of other Union Bank customers who were charged overdraft
charges as a result of "re-sequencing" within the applicable
statute of limitations period. Union Bank intends to vigorously
defend the case.  Trial is currently scheduled for March 2012.


US HOME: Receives $370,000 as Reimbursement to Legal Fees Incurred
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc., disclosed that it received, net of
certain fees, about $370,000 as partial reimbursement for legal
fees incurred in defending two class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's March 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company recorded
$3,246,000 for certain legal settlements principally in connection
with two class action lawsuits.  In July 2009, the Company entered
into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in settlement of one
of the class action lawsuits in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California-Western Division.  The
Company fully paid all amounts owed in connection with this
settlement in December 2009.  On January 20, 2010, the Company
entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement in settlement of
the second class action lawsuit and the Company recorded a
liability of approximately $1,830,000 for this settlement as of
December 31, 2009.  The Company fully paid all amounts owed in
connection with this settlement in August 2010.  On January 13,
2011, the Company agreed with its insurance carrier to receive,
net of certain fees, approximately $370,000 as partial
reimbursement for legal fees incurred by the Company in defending
these lawsuits.

The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that
arise in the ordinary course of business.  While the ultimate
outcome of pending litigation and threatened lawsuits cannot be
predicted with certainty, if decided adversely to or settled by
the Company, individually or in the aggregate, the outcome may
result in a liability material to the Company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.  However, at this
time, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these
matters will not materially affect the consolidated financial
position or results of operations of the Company.


VANCOUVER, CANADA: Condo Owners File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that Vancouver's
Olympic legacy grows ever more litigious as owners who bought into
the troubled athletes village sued the city and developers,
claiming they were duped into buying so-called "world class"
condos that were poorly designed and shoddily put together.

In five complaints in B.C. Supreme Court, condo owners from five
buildings claim the City of Vancouver and developers
misrepresented the condos as having "an extraordinary level of
luxury."

But the owners say the units are not even "sensibly designed,"
because bedrooms can't accommodate double beds without obstructing
closet doors.  Doors in the units "open into one another such that
they cannot be opened at the same time without hitting one
another."

The defendants marketed the condos by claiming they included "'six
acres of green spaces including: parks, inspired landscaping,
patio gardens, reflecting ponds, rain gardens, children's play
areas and rooftop and community gardens,'" but the condo owners
say "in many cases, such features are constructed but not
operational."

The plaintiffs seek rescission of contract, plus interest and
costs, or in the alternative, damages for misrepresentation.

The city is named as a defendant in all five cases.  Also sued are
Sails at the Village on False Creek Developments Corp., Kayak at
the Village on False Creek Developments Corp., Habitat at the
Village on False Creek Developments Corp., Brook at the Village on
False Creek Developments Corp. and Bridge at The Village False
Creek Developments Corp.

A copy of the Complaint in Eun, et al. v. Sails at The Village On
False Creek Developments Corp., et al., Case No. S-111747 (B.C.
Sup. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/18/AthletesVillage.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan G. Baynhham, Q.C.
          HARPER GREY LLP
          Barristers and Solicitors
          3200-650 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, BC V6B 4P7
          Telephone: 604-687-0411
          E-mail: bbaynham@harpergrey.com


VITACOST.COM: McGladrey & Pullen Resigns Due to Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP resigned as Vitacost.com, Inc.'s
independent auditors, the Company disclosed in a Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 17,
2011.

McGladrey resigned on March 11, 2011, after concluding that their
independence had been impaired as a result of being named a
defendant in a class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida.  The complaint
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with McGladrey's audits of the financial statements that were
included in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No.
333-143926), which was filed with the SEC in connection with the
Company's initial public offering.  The decision of McGladrey to
resign was not recommended or approved by the Company's Board of
Directors or the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.

On December 8, 2010, the Company filed a Current Report on Form
8-K in which the Company disclosed that its previously issued
financial statements for all financial reporting periods from and
after 1994; the audit opinion of McGladrey included in, without
limitation, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-143926), the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-164319), and in all other
communications, public announcements, filings and reports issued
by the Company since June 20, 2007, could not and should not be
relied upon, primarily due to uncertainty related to the Company's
equity capitalization.

McGladrey has advised the Company that it has not been able to
complete its evaluation of the information disclosed in December 8
Form 8-K filing, which may materially impact the fairness and
reliability of the Company's financial statements and McGladrey's
reports contained in the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-1 (No. 333-143926), and the Company's subsequently filed
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Annual Report on Form 10-K.
McGladrey has advised the Company that it has not obtained any
evidence to date that leads it to conclude the previously issued
financial statements are materially misstated.

The audit reports of McGladrey on the Company's financial
statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of
opinion, nor were such reports qualified or modified as to
uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

During the years ended December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010,
and the subsequent interim period ended March 11, 2011, there were
no disagreements between the Company and McGladrey on any matter
of accounting principles or practices, financial statement
disclosure or auditing scope or procedure which disagreement(s),
if not resolved to the satisfaction of McGladrey, would have
caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the
disagreement(s) in connection with its reports, Vitacost Chief
Financial Officer Stephen Markert, Jr. said.

On March 15, 2011, the Company provided McGladrey with a copy of
the disclosure contained in the March 17 Form 8-K.  The Company
has requested that McGladrey furnish it with a letter addressed to
the Securities and Exchange Commission, stating that the firm has
read the statements under the March 17 Form 8-K filing and the
firm agrees with those statements.  McGladrey accomplished such
letter.


WALGREEN CO: Judge Allows Mouth Rinse Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that consumers can
sue Walgreens for promoting, and charging a "significant price"
for, a mouth rinse that the company misrepresented as capable of
removing plaque above the gum line to promote healthy gums, a
Florida federal judge ruled.

A class action filed in the Southern District of Florida alleges
that Walgreen Co. marketed its Full Action mouth rinse with claims
that are "misleading, false and reasonably likely to deceive the
public."  The class says the national drugstore chain has no
scientific evidence to back up labeling claims that Full Action
helps kill germs that cause bad breath and fights plaque and gum
disease.

In substantiating these claims, the class pointed to a September
2010 letter from the Food and Drug Administration, which notifies
Walgreens that Full Action's label information is "inconsistent
with the actual ingredients of the product."  Walgreens argued
that the class cannot base its action on an alleged violation of
the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act since "the FDCA is a federal
statute for which no private right of action exists."

U.S. District Judge James Cohn rejected the contention in a March
8 ruling.  In a nine-page order, Judge Cohn found that the
plaintiffs' reliance on the FDA does not mean it is disguising
federal violations as state-law claims.

Walgreens had also tried to dismiss the allegations of unfair
trade practices and breach of warranty, arguing that the class did
not rely on the label information when deciding to purchase Full
Action.

Judge Cohn rebuffed this maneuver as well.  "A deceptive practice
can cause a consumer damages even if the consumer does not rely on
the deceptive practice when purchasing a particular product," he
wrote.

The plaintiffs have a valid claim for breach of express warranty
since they claim that Full Action did not provide the benefits
Walgreens had advertised, according to the decision.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint in Moss v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 10-cv-62089
(S.D. Fla.), is available at http://is.gd/E84Ggn


                            *********

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  * * *