CAR_Public/110405.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 67

                             Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Contact Lens Class Action
AMR CORP: Ill. Sup. Ct. Upholds 'Barber' Suit Dismissal
APOLLO GROUP: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Securities Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Has Until April 19 to Respond to Consolidated Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Pension Suit

APOLLO GROUP: Finalizing Settlement Terms in "Sabol" Wage Lawsuit
APOLLO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adoma" Wage & Hour Class Suit
ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5-Mil.
BRANCH BANKING: 11th Cir. Upholds Non-Arbitration in 'Gordon' Suit
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorneys to Review DePuy Pinnacle Claims

DIGITALPOST INTERACTIVE: Unable to Defend "Leite" Class Suit
EXCHANGE COMPANIES: Timeshare Property Owners Urge to Join Suit
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New York
FOOT LOCKER: To Mediate With Pereira Plaintiff in 2011
GAMING PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal

GOOGLE INC: EPIC Objects to Buzz Class Action Settlement
GSI COMMERCE: Being Sold to eBay for Too Little, Del. Suit Says
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
MERCK & CO: Ky. High Court Upholds Mandamus Denial in Vioxx Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Class Action Reassigned to Judge Nelson

PACIFIC CAPITAL: Settles Indemnification Demand by Jackson Hewitt
PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Smart Meters
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Expired
RETAIL VENTURES: Defends Two Shareholder Suits Over DSW Merger
ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuits in California

SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Sets April 25 Hearing on Suit Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Still Defends "Sudden Acceleration" Class Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
TYSON FOODS: Wage Suit Gets Class Action Status
UNITED PARCEL: Did Not Discriminate Blackhawk, App. Ct. Says

WILBER CORP: Defends Class Suits Over CBSI Merger Agreement
YELP INC: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Alleged Extortion
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motions to Dismiss Suit Still Pending in Ill.
ZYNEX INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

* 3rd Cir. Directs Resentencing in Kevin Waltzer Fraud Cases
* Experts Expect Rise in Canadian Class Actions v. Telecom Firms



                             *********


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Contact Lens Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a decision released March 28, 2011, Mr. Justice Strathy of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class
proceeding on behalf of Canadians who used AMO(R) Complete(R)
All-In-One Moisture Plus(TM) contact lens care solution.

The Solution was recalled from markets around the world in
May 2007 following reports associating the Solution with
Acanthamoeba Keratitis, a debilitating eye infection that can lead
to permanent vision loss, cornea transplants and blindness.
Scientific evidence reveals that users of the Solution are 17
times more likely to develop AK than non-users.

In certifying the action, Justice Strathy rejected the defense
arguments that a related class action pending in British Columbia
was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims of class
members and that the action should be stayed in favor of the
British Columbia action.

"We are obviously pleased with this decision.  Justice Strathy's
reasons reaffirmed one of the foremost policy goals of the Class
Proceedings Act by providing access to justice to thousands of
users of the Solution, including those who have suffered
blindness," said Joel P. Rochon, who is leading the class action
effort.

Donna Pollack, the representative plaintiff of the class, who
underwent a cornea transplant and has been left with permanent
loss of vision, stated: "My independent life stopped dead for over
two years.  I became blind in my right eye and as a teacher of
young children, this was very troubling. The pain I suffered from
the chemical treatments and the infection eating away at my cornea
was unbearable."

Ashley Greening of St. John's, another victim of the AMO product,
said: "the day I contracted AK was the worst day of my life.  I
was forced to leave university, went blind, suffered just
incredible pain and then had my eye surgically removed.  This is
not something any 21-year-old should have to endure.  I hope that
one day the executives at AMO and Abbott Laboratories will
understand just how much we have lost to this disease."

Certification did not involve an assessment of the case on the
merits and the allegations raised in the proceeding have not yet
been proven in court.  The case is Pollack v. Advanced Medical
Optics Inc., Court File # 07-CV-333992CP.


AMR CORP: Ill. Sup. Ct. Upholds 'Barber' Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the judgment of the
appellate court and affirmed the ruling of the circuit court in
the class action commenced by Andrea Barber against AMR Corp.'s
American Airlines, Inc. for breach of contract.

Andrea Barber alleged that American Airlines' "failure to
transport her two suitcases was a breach of contract and Plaintiff
was entitled to a refund."  Plaintiff sought recovery on behalf of
similarly situated persons.  The circuit court granted defendant's
motion to dismiss the action, and plaintiff appealed.  A divided
panel of the appellate court reversed and remanded the circuit
court ruling.

Justice Charles E. Freeman, who penned the decision, concluded
that the circuit court correctly dismissed plaintiff's class
action complaint as moot under Wheatley v. Board of Education of
Township High School District 205, 99 Ill.2d 481 (1984). 398 Ill.
App. 3d at 888 (Cahill, P.J., dissenting), because no motion for
class certification was pending when defendant tendered full
relief to plaintiff.  The Court reversed the appellate court
judgment.  The decision is concurred by Justices Robert R. Thomas,
Rita B. Garman, Lloyd A. Karmeier, Anne M. Burke, and Mary Jane
Theis.

Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride concurred.
According to Judge Kilbride, "While I agree with that outcome, I
write separately to recognize authority supporting the pick-off
exception and state expressly what the majority's holding
implies." Judge Kilbridge explained that, "the majority, by
rejecting only  the erroneously broad application of the pick-off
exception applied in this case, has implicitly endorsed a narrower
pick-off exception."

The appeal is captioned Andrea Barber, appellee v. American
Airlines, Inc. appellant, Docket No. 110092, (Ill. Sup. Ct.), and
a copy of the Supreme Court's March 24, 2011 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Z7bExnfrom Leagle.com.


APOLLO GROUP: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc.'s petition for certiorari was denied by the
U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the ruling of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversing an order granting judgment in
favor of Apollo, according to the Company's March 29, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The District
Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under
the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT and a consolidated class action complaint
was filed on May 16, 2005 by the lead plaintiff. The consolidated
complaint named the Company, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales and
Daniel E. Bachus as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation
and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a
defendant from the case. Lead plaintiff represents a class of
the Company's shareholders who acquired their shares between
February 27, 2004 and September 14, 2004. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act by the
Company for defendants' allegedly material false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's failure to publicly
disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of
Education program review report. The case proceeded to trial on
November 14, 2007. On January 16, 2008, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55
for each share of common stock in the class suit, plus pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest. The class shares are those
purchased after February 27, 2004 and still owned on September 14,
2004. The judgment was entered on January 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until February 13, 2008. On February 13, 2008, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to stay execution of
the judgment pending resolution of its motions for post-trial
relief, which were also filed on February 13, 2008, provided that
the Company post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million. On
February 19, 2008, the Company posted the $95.0 million bond with
the District Court. Oral arguments on the Company's post-trial
motions occurred on August 4, 2008, during which the District
Court vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and
entered judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants. The
$95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently released on
August 11, 2008. Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 29, 2008. A hearing
before a panel of the Court of Appeals took place on March 3,
2010. On June 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling in the Company's favor and ordered the District
Court to enter judgment against the Company in accordance with the
jury verdict. On July 21, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a
rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on August
17, 2010. On November 15, 2010, the Company filed a petition for
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on March 7,
2011. As a result, the case has now returned to the District Court
to enter judgment against the Company and address issues related
to shareholder claims.

Liability in the case is joint and several, which means that each
defendant, including the Company, is liable for the entire amount
of the judgment. As a result, the Company may be responsible for
payment of the full amount of damages as ultimately determined.
The Company does not expect to receive material amounts of
insurance proceeds from its insurers to satisfy any amounts
ultimately payable to the plaintiff class and the Company expects
its insurers to seek repayment of amounts advanced to it to date
for defense costs. The actual amount of damages will not be known
until the District Court proceedings have been completed and
eligible members of the class have presented the necessary
information and documents to receive payment of the award. The
Company has estimated for financial reporting purposes, using
statistically valid models and a 60% confidence interval, that the
damages could range from $127.2 million to $228.0 million, which
includes the Company's estimates of (a) damages payable to the
plaintiff class; (b) the amount the Company may be required to
reimburse the Company's insurance carriers for amounts advanced
for defense costs; and (c) future defense costs. Accordingly, in
the third quarter of fiscal year 2010, the Company recorded a
charge for estimated damages in the amount of $132.6 million,
which, together with the existing reserve of $44.5 million
recorded in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010, represented
the mid-point of the estimated range of damages payable to the
plaintiffs, plus the other estimated costs and expenses. The
Company elected to record an amount based on the mid-point of the
range of damages payable to the plaintiff class because under
statistically valid modeling techniques the mid-point of the range
is in fact a more likely estimate than other points in the range,
and the point at which there is an equal probability that the
ultimate loss could be toward the lower end or the higher end of
the range. the Company's range of damages estimate included
estimated post-judgment interest through June 23, 2010. The
Company has recorded charges in subsequent periods for estimated
incremental post-judgment interest and additional estimated future
legal costs, including $1.6 million and $2.5 million in the three
and six months ended February 28, 2011, respectively. The final
amount of damages payable may be more, or less, than the estimated
range.

The Company believes it has adequate liquidity to fund the
satisfaction of the judgment.


APOLLO GROUP: Has Until April 19 to Respond to Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., has until April 19, 2011, to file a response
to a consolidated amended complaint, according to the Company's
March 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class
period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007
to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Gaer, Fitch and Roth actions were all
consolidated, with Gaer as the case, and the Court appointed the
"Apollo Institutional Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon
Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme,
and Amalgamated Bank as lead plaintiff. The case is now entitled,
In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 18,
2011, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming
Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico,
Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian
E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson, and William J. Pepicello as
defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from May 21, 2007 to October 13, 2010. Apollo's
response to the consolidated complaint is currently due on
April 19, 2011.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun. The Company anticipates
that the plaintiffs will seek substantial damages. Because of the
many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued
any liability associated with these actions.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint filed by The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff of a class action
lawsuit.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
purportedly making misrepresentations concerning the Company's
stock option granting policies and practices and related
accounting. The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor
de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda
B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson,
Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter
V. Sperling. On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007,
asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and
adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties
and civil conspiracy.

On January 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to
Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini,
and Laura Palmer Noone. The Court also dismissed the case as to
John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint against them. Finally, the Court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before
November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and
breach of fiduciary duty. On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for
alleged securities fraud against the same defendants. On June 15,
2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court partially
granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, but withheld a
final determination on the individual defendants pending the
Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  The Company anticipates
that the plaintiff will seek substantial damages. Because of the
many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not
accrued any liability associated with this action.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 29, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.


APOLLO GROUP: Finalizing Settlement Terms in "Sabol" Wage Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is finalizing the terms of its settlement with
plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit in Philadelphia, according to
its March 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.

On July 31, 2009, several former employees filed an action in
Federal District Court in Philadelphia alleging wage and hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay
overtime and other violations, entitled, Sabol, et al. v. Apollo
Group, Inc., et al. The Company filed an answer denying the
asserted claim on September 29, 2009. During the course of the
action, all but one of the former employees voluntarily opted out
of the lawsuit. On January 24, 2010, the Company filed a motion
for partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim
that the "Academic Counselor" position is incorrectly classified
as exempt. On February 9, 2010, plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f)
motion seeking leave to conduct additional discovery before
response to the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. On
March 3, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff leave to conduct
additional discovery on issues related to the motion for partial
summary judgment until April 5, 2010. The Court also ordered
plaintiff to file his response to the motion for summary judgment
on or before April 20, 2010. On February 15, 2010, plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification and the Company filed its
opposition on March 5, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice
their claims regarding employment as an Academic Counselor and to
withdraw their pending motion for conditional certification to
the extent it seeks to certify a class of Academic Counselors. On
May 12, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include current and
former admissions personnel at all of University of Phoenix's
nationwide locations. The deadline for prospective class members
to submit a claim form and "opt in" was December 9, 2010 and the
Company received notice of approximately 700 opt-ins. In January
2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an immaterial
amount, which was accrued in the Company's financial statements
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. The parties are
currently finalizing the settlement terms, which must be approved
by the Court.


APOLLO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adoma" Wage & Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage and
hour class action lawsuit filed by Diane Adoma in California.

On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action in United States
District Court, Eastern District of California alleging wage and
hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law
for failure to pay overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma
et al. v. University of Phoenix, et al.  On March 5, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay
or transfer, the case based on the previously filed Sabol and
Juric actions.  On May 3, 2010, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and/or transfer.  On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed her
motion for conditional collective action certification.  The Court
denied class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
transferred these claims to the District Court in Pennsylvania.
On August 31, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
action certification of the California claims.  On September 14,
2010, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the
class certification order with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied
on November 3, 2010.  As a result, notice of the lawsuit was
mailed to 1,554 current and former employees explaining that they
will remain a part of the lawsuit unless they complete an "opt-
out" form within 45 days of receiving the notice.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 29, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Glacier Income Fund on March 31 disclosed that it has
reached an agreement to settle a class action filed by direct
purchasers of packaged ice against Arctic Glacier International
Inc., the Fund's U.S. operating subsidiary, alleging antitrust law
violations.

The agreement, which is subject to approval by U.S. District
Court, provides for the subsidiary to pay a settlement totaling
US$12.5 million in two installments.  The first installment of
US$2.5 million will be paid on the later of July 15, 2011 or the
date that falls 15 days after receiving preliminary court
approval, with the remaining installment of US$10.0 million
payable on the later of Nov. 1, 2011 or the date that falls
30 days after final court approval.

Direct purchaser class actions were filed in several states, but
they were transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Similar class actions were filed against Home City Ice Co. of
Cincinnati and Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. of Dallas. Home City
executed a settlement agreement with the direct purchasers on
October 30, 2009.

"The allegations in the lawsuit are contrary to findings of the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department Of Justice, which after
a lengthy investigation concluded in 2010 that no such industry-
wide collusion took place," said Keith McMahon, President and CEO
of Arctic Glacier.  "It's also worth noting that this action has
not gone to trial and therefore the company has not yet had an
opportunity to produce evidence refuting the allegation of
involvement in industry-wide collusion.  Nonetheless, Arctic
Glacier has agreed to this settlement to put this matter behind us
so that the company can move forward."

Arctic Glacier has reinforced its ongoing competition law
compliance program, which requires all managers and staff to fully
comply with its provisions at all times.  Arctic Glacier has also
adopted a company-wide system of training and education, adopting
best practices in all cases in order to respect the competitive
landscape of the North American ice industry.

                       About Arctic Glacier

Arctic Glacier Income Fund, through its operating company, Arctic
Glacier Inc., is a leading produces, markets and distributes
packaged ice in North America, primarily under the brand name of
Arctic Glacier(R) Premium Ice.  Arctic Glacier operates 39
production plants and 48 distribution facilities across Canada and
the northeast, central and western United States servicing more
than 75,000 retail locations.

Arctic Glacier Income Fund trust units are listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol AG.UN. There are
39.0 million trust units outstanding.


BRANCH BANKING: 11th Cir. Upholds Non-Arbitration in 'Gordon' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Marcus of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, in concurrence with Circuit Judge R. Lainier Anderson and
District Judge Richard Mills for the Central District of Illinois,
affirmed the district court's orders in denying Branch Banking and
Trust's motion to compel Faith Gordon to arbitrate her consumer
complaint.

Appellee Faith Gordon has a consumer checking account with BB&T.
In a 2009 class action, she asserted against BB&T claims for
breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment for
allegations of unfair assessment of excessive overdraft charges.

BB&T moved to compel Ms. Gordon to arbitrate her dispute on an
individual basis pursuant to the Bank Services Agreement between
them.  Mr. Gordon resisted arbitration on the ground that the
class action waiver was substantively unconscionable under Georgia
law, and therefore the arbitration provision as a whole was
unenforceable.

The 11th Circuit agrees with the district court that enforcing the
class action waiver in the case would prevent consumer checking
account holders like Ms. Gordon from obtaining needed
representation to challenged practices by BB&T that may be
unlawful.

The appeal is captioned Faith Gordon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Branch Banking
and Trust, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 09-15399 (11th Cir.).  A
copy of the Circuit Court's March 38, 2011, opinion is available
at http://is.gd/bq59n3at Leagle.com.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorneys to Review DePuy Pinnacle Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org disclosed that while a DePuy Pinnacle recall has
not been issued, the hip implant lawyers working with Class
Action.org would like to hear from patients experiencing problems
with the metal-on-metal DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System.
Since the August 2010 DePuy hip recall, which took the DePuy ASR
XL Acetabular Hip System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System off the
market, concerns have mounted over the DePuy Pinnacle hip.
Although the Pinnacle system was not included in this or any DePuy
hip recall, patients have reported complications with their metal-
on-metal Pinnacle implants, and several Pinnacle hip lawsuits have
been filed.

If you have experienced DePuy Pinnacle problems, visit
http://www.classaction.org/depuy-pinnacle-acetabular-cup-system.html
and complete the free case evaluation form to find out if you can
file a claim to recover financial compensation.

When a metal liner is used, the DePuy Pinnacle hip may release
tiny metal particles as its metal components rub against each
other.  While some patients do not react to these metal particles,
other may develop metallosis, an inflammatory reaction to elevated
metallic levels.  Metal poisoning can damages muscles and other
soft tissues and may cause DePuy Pinnacle failure, often requiring
a corrective surgery.

If you or a loved one has experienced high metallic levels or
other DePuy Pinnacle hip problems, you may have legal recourse.
Although a DePuy Pinnacle hip recall has not been issued, patients
experiencing problems with the metal-on-metal DePuy Pinnacle hips
may still be able to participate in a DePuy Pinnacle lawsuit.
Visit Class Action.org to learn more about DePuy Pinnacle problems
and to receive a free evaluation of your case.

                     About Class Action.org

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


DIGITALPOST INTERACTIVE: Unable to Defend "Leite" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Digitalpost Interactive, Inc., is unable to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Chris Leite due to
insufficient funds, according to a March 29, 2011, Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 23, 2011, the Company and its subsidiary Rovion, Inc.,
and Local.com Corporation mutually agreed to terminate the Asset
Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 11, 2011, for the
Company's prospective sale of its Rovion business to Local.  The
parties' agreement to terminate the APA resulted from the
Registrant's determination to file a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court in the near term.  That decision by
the Company was a result of its inability to fund the defense of a
recent filing of a complaint by Chris Leite, individually and as a
putative class action on behalf of the stockholders of the
Company, against the Company, all members of the Registrant's
Board of Directors, and Local.com Corporation or to continue to
fund its day-to-day operations over the course of a litigation
such as the Leite Action.  The Company, Rovion and Local have
initiated discussions regarding a possible purchase of the assets
of Rovion in accordance with such a bankruptcy proceeding, if at
all.


EXCHANGE COMPANIES: Timeshare Property Owners Urge to Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timeshares Daily reports that people who are familiar with the
Owners Action Web site and have been reading the article on
enforcement work being done by the RDO should be well aware that
the two organizations are in no way associated with each other.
Owners Action, acting as a marketer for International Timeshare
Refund Action, neither markets nor sells timeshare properties.

Instead, the organization calls out to owners of timeshare
properties to participate in a class action against their
respective exchange companies or resorts.  Companies, however,
have recently failed to inform potential clients of their other
functions such as offering Club Class holidays and selling holiday
club memberships.

Back in January, the Advertising Standards Authority placed a ban
against the ITRA in broadcasting a television advertisement which,
according to the ASA, misleads viewers by purposely omitting
mention of their services.  The ITRA failed to mention to its
clients its selling of Club Class holidays as a hidden substitute.


FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend itself and its Foot Locker
Retirement Plan against a class action lawsuit filed in New York
for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, according to the Company's March 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.

In February 2007, the Company and its U.S. pension plan, the Foot
Locker Retirement Plan, were named as defendants in a class action
in federal court in New York.  The Complaint alleged that the
Company's pension plan violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, including, without limitation, its age
discrimination and notice provisions, as a result of the Company's
conversion of its defined benefit plan to a defined benefit
pension plan with a cash balance feature in 1996.  The Company is
defending the action vigorously.  The Company is currently unable
to make an estimate of loss or range of loss.  Management does not
believe that the outcome of any such proceedings would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.


FOOT LOCKER: To Mediate With Pereira Plaintiff in 2011
------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., is anticipating, during the course of 2011, to
engage in mediation with the plaintiff in Pereira v. Foot Locker,
in an attempt to resolve allegations of unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms, according to the Company's March 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour
laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In September 2009, the
Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.
During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately
81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering them
the opportunity to participate in the class action, and
approximately 5,027 have opted in.

The Company was a defendant in an additional seven purported wage
and hour class actions that assert claims similar to those
asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception
of one case in state court in Illinois, all of these actions were
either commenced in federal district court or the Company has
subsequently removed them to federal district court.  Subsequent
to year-end, one of these cases was settled for an amount that was
not material to the Company; three of them are in the discovery
stage; and the remaining three are in preliminary stages of
proceedings.  The Company anticipates that, during the course of
2011, it will engage in mediation with plaintiff in Pereira and
his counsel in an attempt to determine whether it will be possible
to resolve these cases.  Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously
defending them.  The Company is currently unable to make an
estimate of loss or range of loss for these cases.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including Pereira and related cases, would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.


GAMING PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Partners International Corporation is still awaiting a
ruling on an appeal made by a plaintiff regarding the dismissal of
a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 29, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the Company, entitled Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain
Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry,
Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corporation
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, under Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF. Plaintiff Kaplan was
designated by the court as "Lead Plaintiff." On February 12, 2008,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, deleting several of the
defendants, and adding three others. The action is now captioned
Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a
Melody Sullivan Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric
P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International
Corporation. The Company engaged counsel and has vigorously
defended against the claims presented. Defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint on April 16, 2008. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was thereafter granted and an order was entered dismissing
the Amended Complaint without prejudice on November 18, 2008.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 9, 2009.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was
filed on February 27, 2009. On September 28, 2009, Defendants'
motion was granted and judgment dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice was entered on September 29, 2009. On
October 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal of the
Court's judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral
argument before the court was conducted on March 17, 2011. The
matter awaits the court's rulings and decision.


GOOGLE INC: EPIC Objects to Buzz Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that an Internet privacy
group that prodded U.S. regulators to scrutinize Google Inc. is
miffed about getting cut out of a class action settlement over the
search behemoth's Buzz social network.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center objected to the
settlement in a court filing last week, claiming Google and others
had decided to fund groups already benefiting from the company's
largesse.

EPIC, led by prominent privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg, filed a
complaint with the Federal Trade Commission last year, saying Buzz
threatened the privacy of Gmail users.  Google settled with the
FTC on March 30 and agreed to independent privacy audits.

Google had also agreed last year to resolve a separate class
action lawsuit brought by a Gmail user.  Part of that deal
provided for over $6 million to go to groups advocating for
Internet privacy issues.

EPIC had requested $1.75 million.  And while Google and plaintiff
lawyers doled out money to groups like the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the
Brookings Institution, EPIC did not get a cent.

EPIC and a handful of other groups objected in a court filing on
March 30, saying the majority of funds would be allocated to
groups that "receive support from Google for lobbying, consulting,
or similar services."

However, EPIC did not specify which of the groups provided
lobbying services.  Mr. Rotenberg did not respond to questions
about the court filing.

A Google representative declined to comment, while plaintiff
lawyers could not be reached.

The court should reject a deal "that encourages organizations to
stand by quietly while others do the actual work of safeguarding
Internet privacy," EPIC said in its filing.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is In Re Google Buzz User Privacy Litigation, 10-672.


GSI COMMERCE: Being Sold to eBay for Too Little, Del. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say GSI Commerce
is selling itself too cheaply to eBay, for $29.95 a share or $2.4
billion, in a deal that will enrich GSI founder and CEO Michael
Rubin.

A copy of the Complaint in Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority v. Rubin, et al., Case No. 6323
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/31/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1100
          P.O. Box 1035
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          Lisa M. Lamb, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma has obtained final approval of its settlement
of a consolidated class action, according to the Company's
March 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Between November 10, 2009 and December 29, 2009, five putative
class actions were filed against Hemispherx and its Chief
Executive Officer generally asserting that Defendants
misrepresented the status of the Company's New Drug Application
for Ampligen(R).  Each action was purportedly brought on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities.
On February 12, 2010, the Court consolidated the five actions, and
on February 26, 2010, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
adding the Company's Medical Director as a Defendant.  On March
12, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which the Court denied on April 20, 2010.  On April 27,
2010, the Court entered a Case Management Order directing the
parties to undertake the Discovery process.

On August 24, 2010, the Company announced that, as result of Court
mediation proceedings, the Company entered into a written
agreement in principle with the Court-appointed lead plaintiffs to
settle all of the pending securities class actions consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On October 20, 2010, an "Order Preliminarily Approving The
Settlement, Directing The Issuance Of Notice, And Scheduling A
Settlement Fairness Hearing" was entered by the U.S. District
Court overseeing the Securities Class Action Lawsuit.  As
described in the Order, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated September 24, 2010 in full and final
settlement of each and every Released Claim against Hemispherx.

The related Settlement Fairness Hearing was held on January 20,
2011, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to determine whether:

   * the Action should be finally certified as a class action
     suit;

   * the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and
     should be approved;

   * the Released Claims against Hemispherx should be dismissed;

   * the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the
     Settlement should be approved by the Court;

   * the application of the Lead Counsel for an award of attorney
     fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be
     approved;

   * to determine the amount of reimbursement of cost and expenses
     for representation of the suit;

   * any other matters as the Court deem appropriate.

On February 17, 2011, the Company announced that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had issued
an Order granting final approval of the parties' settlement of the
Securities Class Action Lawsuit.  Consistent with the announcement
of August 24, 2010, the settlement is to be paid from the
Company's insurance coverage and did not result in the payment of
any funds by the Company.  Furthermore, the settlement expressly
did not contain any admission of culpability by Hemispherx or its
Officers.


MERCK & CO: Ky. High Court Upholds Mandamus Denial in Vioxx Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed a Court of Appeals'
judgment denying Merck & Company, Inc.'s petition for a writ of
mandamus against Judge Stephen D. Combs of the Pike Circuit Court.

James Ratliff commenced a class action in the Pike Circuit Court
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in
Kentucky, alleging that Merck concealed the dangerous side effects
of the prescription pain medication marketed under the name
"Vioxx."  In April 2010, the circuit court denied Merck's summary
judgment motion and certified a class of Vioxx users for the
period January 2000 through early 2004.  Merck then sought an
order from the Court of Appeals directing the Pike Circuit Court
to enter summary judgment in its favor, or vacate the circuit
court's order certifying a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court of Appeals denied
Merck's petition in May 2010.

Merck brought its appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, entitled
Merck & Company, Inc., appellant, v. Hon. Stephen D. Combs and
James Ratliff, Case No. 2010-C-0000529-MR (Ky. Sup. Ct.).

A writ of mandamus is reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
The Supreme Court holds that Merck presented no evidence that the
current case presents a special circumstance where mandamus was
found to be appropriate.

"Merck presents no specific evidence of how this particular class
action would be crippling to the company and we do not see how
there would not be adequate remedy by appeal," the Supreme Court
said.

Moreover, the Supreme Court opined, a request that a circuit court
be directed to grant summary judgment is not a proper issue to be
raised in a writ of mandamus.

A copy of the Supreme Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 24,
2011, is available at http://is.gd/Ty2f8Ifrom Leagle.com.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Class Action Reassigned to Judge Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that retired football players'
federal class action against the NFL, led by Carl Eller, has been
reassigned to Judge Susan Richard Nelson's court, as it is related
to the class action from active players, led by Tom Brady, in
Judge Nelson's court.

A copy of the Order for Reassignment of Related Cases in Brady,
et al. v. National Football League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639
(D. Minn.), and in Eller v. National Football League, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00748 (D. Minn.), is available at:

   http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/31/NFLJudge.pdf


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Settles Indemnification Demand by Jackson Hewitt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp and Jackson Hewitt, Inc., have reached a
settlement on Jackson Hewitt's indemnification demand in
connection with the class action lawsuit commenced by Canieva Hood
and Congress of California Seniors, according to the Company's
March 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

By order dated April 29, 2009, the Santa Barbara County Superior
Court approved a settlement in the class action lawsuit entitled
Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bank, NA, and Jackson Hewitt, Inc.
(Case No. 1156354).  Pacific Capital Bancorp was named as a
defendant in the Hood litigation, and contemporaneous updates
regarding that case were included in prior filings.  The Court
entered judgment consistent with the settlement, and that judgment
is final.  In September 2010, Jackson Hewitt, Inc., made a demand
on the Company for indemnification for the amount it paid in
settlement, plus costs and attorneys' fees, in the Hood case.  The
parties have reached a settlement on the indemnification demand,
the amount of which will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operation or cash flow.


PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Smart Meters
-------------------------------------------------
Lanetra Bennett, writing for WCTV.tv, reports residents in the
Bakersfield area of California have filed a class-action lawsuit
against Pacific Gas & Electric because they believe their new
smart meters are malfunctioning, making their bills much higher
than before.

As far as Tallahassee is concerned, Matt Matherne, the Tallahassee
Utility Accounts Administrator, said, "The accuracy of the meters
is sound."

The City of Tallahassee installed 118,000 smart meters for
residential and commercial customers in 2009.

Mr. Matherne said, "We have had a couple of concerns of that
nature at the very beginning of the project, which is now over a
year ago.  We checked those out individually and saw no issues
with the meters."

Mr. Matherne says the city is confident in their meter company--
Elster, formerly White Westinghouse--because it has 178 years of
experience.

For customers who aren't as sure about their bills being
calculated by the meters and computer system, Mr. Matherne said,
"You can check our figures by going to look at the meter
yourself."

Tallahassee resident Mariah Blake says she's thankful to not have
problems with her bill.

She said, "They complain about the energy.  But, some people just
burn lights without being used.  If I'm not in a room, I don't
leave lights on.  I cut them off.  Then, they came around one year
and they gave me these energy saving bulbs, and they are the
bomb."

Administrators say at last check, they can read 99.6% of all smart
meters through the communication computer system.

For any data that cannot be read, administrators say they go out
and physically read the meter to ensure accuracy.

City workers say people's bills are high because of rates and
customers' usage.

Tallahassee offers programs to help with energy conservation, go
to talgov.com for information.

If you don't think your smart meter working properly, you can call
the city and they will come and check it.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Expired
--------------------------------------------------------------
The time for plaintiffs to file an appeal from the final judgment
dismissing the consolidated lawsuit captioned In re Repros
Therapeutics, Inc., Securities Litigation has expired, according
to the Company's March 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In August and September of 2009, several securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed in federal court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and various of its current
or former officers and directors.  The lawsuits alleged that the
defendants made certain misleading statements related to the
Company's Proellex(R) drug.  Among other claims, the lawsuits
alleged that the defendants misrepresented the side effects of the
drug related to liver function, and the risk that these side
effects could cause a suspension of clinical trials on
Proellex(R).  The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In
re Repros Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 09 Civ. 2530 (VDG), and the court appointed lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint making essentially the same allegations as had been made
in the prior complaints.  Lead plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Repros
common stock between July 1, 2009 and August 2, 2009, and asserted
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On January 19, 2011, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a
final judgment dismissing the case.  The time for plaintiffs to
file an appeal of that order expired on February 18, 2011.

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


RETAIL VENTURES: Defends Two Shareholder Suits Over DSW Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Ventures, Inc., is facing two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits in Ohio relating to its proposed merger with DSW
MS LLC, according to the Company's March 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, RVI, DSW, and DSW MS LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of DSW, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
pursuant to which RVI will merge with and into DSW Merger LLC,
with DSW Merger LLC continuing after the Merger as the surviving
entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSW.

Purported shareholders of Retail Ventures, Inc., have filed two
putative shareholder class action lawsuits in an Ohio state court
against RVI and its directors and, in one case, its chief
executive officers, and its subsidiary, DSW Inc., and in one case
DSW Merger LLC.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that RVI
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Merger Agreement, and that in one case, RVI's chief executive
officer and DSW, and in the other that RVI and DSW, aided and
abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the Merger, as well as monetary damages.  While the RVI
Defendants and DSW defendants believe the lawsuits are without
merit and intend to defend vigorously against these claims, the
outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain.  If a
dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, the
lawsuit could prevent or delay the completion of the Merger and
result in substantial costs to RVI and DSW.  In addition, the
defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the Merger closes could adversely affect
RVI's and DSW's business, financial condition or results of
operations.


ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.

Like many California retailers, the Company has been named in
class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims. Class action
litigation involving allegations that hourly associates have
missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations of
unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at Company stores under state law remains pending as of
January 29, 2011.

No additional details were reported in the Company's March 29,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.


SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Sets April 25 Hearing on Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Group Holdings, Inc., as successor to Fremont General
Corporation, entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action against Fremont currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the Company's March 28, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Six complaints seeking class certification were filed from April
through June 2007 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Fremont General Corporation
and various officers, directors and employees by participants in
Fremont's Investment Incentive Plan, 401(k) Plan and Employee
Stock Ownership Plan alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with Fremont stock
offered, contributed and held by the Plans between January 1, 2005
and December 31, 2008.  Subsequently, these six complaints were
consolidated in a single proceeding styled, In re Fremont General
Corporation Litigation, U.S. District Court Case No. CV07-02693
JHN(FFMX).  On April 15, 2010, the District Court granted the
Order for Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

On March 22, 2011, Signature Group Holdings, Inc., as successor to
Fremont, entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action, to settle the outstanding litigation
matter.  The Stipulation is subject to the approval of the
District Court.

On March 23, 2011, the parties submitted the Stipulation for
approval by the District Court.  If the Stipulation is approved,
the Company's insurance carriers will pay $21 million in full
settlement of all claims.  The Company says it has no
responsibility for any part of the payment being made, and the
settlement is entered into without any admission of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company.  The District Court has scheduled a
hearing on April 25, 2011, to consider granting preliminary
approval to the Stipulation.  If the District Court grants that
motion, a hearing on final approval is anticipated during the
following four months.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Still Defends "Sudden Acceleration" Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is still defending itself against
class action lawsuits related to sudden unintended acceleration of
Toyota vehicles, according to its March 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

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.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is awaiting a ruling on an appeal
from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit filed
against the Company in California, according to the Company's
March 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

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 alleges
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.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


TYSON FOODS: Wage Suit Gets Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has approved
class-action status for workers at two Tyson Foods plants in
Nebraska who are suing their employer over wages.

The lawsuits say production workers at the Dakota City and Madison
plants are paid only for the time that they're on the actual
assembly line.  The workers are seeking pay for time before and
after assembly line work -- time spent putting on uniforms and
safety gear, sanitizing equipment, sharpening knives and other
duties.

Tyson says in court filings that workers were paid appropriately.

The court filings show one of the class-action lawsuits could
include at least 3,100 workers in Dakota City and the other could
cover up to 2,000 workers in Madison.

Trial dates have not been set.


UNITED PARCEL: Did Not Discriminate Blackhawk, App. Ct. Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge appellate court panel affirmed a trial court's
denial of a postjudgment motion filed by Blackhawk Products Group
and seven other business entities for relief concerning efforts to
obtain benefits under a settlement in the class action, Tim
Runner, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.  The panel
consists of Associate Justices William F. Rylaarsdam, Richard M.
Aronson, and Eileen C. Moore of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three.

The class action against UPS alleged improper charges imposed on
commercial location deliveries.  In April 2008, the parties
reached a settlement providing for the certification of two
classes of shippers.  One class category consisted of shippers
that delivered UPS packages in the U.S. from January 1, 1998 to
May 6, 2008, where the shippers assessed a residential surcharge
or adjustment -- the "Contract Settlement Class."  For this class
type, the settlement created three tiers of relief.  The trial
court's final approval of the settlement became final in January
2009.

In July 2009, Blackhawk, together with seven other business
entities, filed a motion for equitable relief, including a request
for about $50,000 in attorney fees and costs, alleging UPS had
breached the settlement in several respects.  The Claimants said
they filed Second Tier claims but was denied due to "unpersuasive
documentation."  The Claimants said UPS breached the settlement by
refusing to informally resolve the claims dispute, among other
things.

The trial court granted the claimants permission to file
supplemental forms for Third Tier benefits, but otherwise denied
their post-judgment motion.

The Appellate Court concluded that the Claimants waived arguments
on appeal that UPS acted in bad faith with respect to the
administration of the class settlement, because the Claimants'
opening brief summarizes only the evidence presented in support of
their motion.

The Appellate Court also disagreed with the Claimants'
contention that the claim forms signed by their attorney as their
representative with attached "common witness standards" satisfied
the persuasive documentation requirement.  The Appellate Court
noted that (1) the persuasive documentation requirement was
expressly included in the settlement between plaintiffs and UPS,
and (2) the settlement attached a copy of the form and declared
"[t]he Claim Form shall be in the form, and contain the content,"
as the attached document.

Finally, the Claimants' attack on the trial court's denial of
their request for attorney fees in prosecuting the motion for
equitable relief lacks merit, the Appellate Court held.  The
Appellate Court doubts that the Claimants qualified as a
successful party on their pre-judgment motion.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 29, 2011 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/xHQto2at Leagle.com.


WILBER CORP: Defends Class Suits Over CBSI Merger Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wilber Corporation is defending itself against putative class
action lawsuits over its definitive merger agreement with
Community Bank System, Inc., according to its March 29, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, CBSI will acquire the
Company for approximately $101.8 million, and the Company will
merge with and into CBSI, with CBSI being the surviving
corporation.  Immediately following the Merger, the Bank, the
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company will be merged with and
into CBSI's subsidiary bank, Community Bank, N.A. and Community
Bank will continue as the surviving bank.

On November 3, 2010, a shareholder of Wilber filed a lawsuit in
the New York Supreme Court.  On November 17, 2010, another
shareholder filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court.  Both
lawsuits were brought on behalf of a putative class of Wilber's
common shareholders and seek an order that they are properly
maintainable as class actions.  Both complaints name Wilber,
Wilber's Directors, and CBSI as defendants and allege that the
Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in connection with the Merger and
allege that CBSI aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaints allege that the Director
Defendants improperly favored CBSI and discouraged alternative
bids by agreeing to the Merger Agreement's non-solicitation
provision and termination fee provision.  Plaintiffs allege that
pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CBSI agreed to appoint two of
Wilber's directors to the Boards of CBSI and Community Bank N.A.
effective upon the closing of the Merger.  Plaintiffs further
allege that CBSI agreed to establish an advisory board of
Community Bank N.A, made up of the current directors of Wilber.
The complaints also allege that the directors and officers of
Wilber entered into voting agreements to vote their shares of
Wilber common stock in favor of the Merger Agreement.  In
addition, the complaints allege that the consideration to be
received by Wilber's common shareholders is inadequate and unfair.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the Merger, a constructive trust over any
benefits improperly received by defendants, and costs including
plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees.

CBSI and Wilber have answered the complaints and moved for summary
judgment dismissing the cases.  The Plaintiff in the first action
has served discovery demands requesting the production of
documents by Defendants.  The Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate
these two lawsuits into one action.  The Plaintiffs have moved for
leave to amend their complaints, to file one consolidated amended
complaint. The Plaintiffs also seek permission to file an amended
pleading given that the Form S-4 Registration Statement is already
filed.  Each of Community Bank System and Wilber believes the
claims asserted are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.


YELP INC: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Alleged Extortion
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in San Francisco has tossed out a lawsuit seeking
class action damages for alleged "implied" extortion by online
review site Yelp.  But the judge, Marilyn Hall Patel, gave
plaintiffs the opportunity to rewrite and refile allegations that
San Francisco-based Yelp sought advertising in exchange for
favored treatment.

Eric Goldman, an associate professor at Santa Clara University
School of Law, who analyzed Judge Patel's decision on his blog,
said that he expects the plaintiffs will refile their claims.

The dismissed lawsuit involves various complaints filed last year
that echoed allegations made in an East Bay Express investigative
piece titled "Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0," which
appeared in February 2009.

Officials with Yelp Inc. have denied any illegal behavior, but
have made changes to operations in an attempt allay concerns.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motions to Dismiss Suit Still Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a class action complaint against YTB
International, Inc., remain pending in Illinois.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the Company, three Company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. On August 14, 2008, a second,
substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The two cases were consolidated and
proceeded together before the same judge. The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100
million.  On February 9, 2009, the Company filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's
ruling.  On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The
amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the
dismissed complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its
own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint
does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading
standards.  On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for
leave with the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court granted
their motions and a second amended complaint was filed on
December 24, 2009.  On February 12, 2010, the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On
April 19, 2010, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all
the out-of-state plaintiffs.  As a result, there was only one
remaining plaintiff who is a citizen of Illinois.  Consequently,
the Court requested further briefing on the issue of whether the
Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both plaintiffs
and defendants are citizens of the same state.  The additional
briefing was due on May 19, 2010.  On May 26, 2010, the Court
dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit.  Oral argument for the
appeal occurred on February 25, 2011. Additionally, on June 16,
2010, the Plaintiffs filed a new class action complaint with
substantially the same allegations in Illinois state court.  This
state court complaint has been removed to Federal Court and
motions to dismiss the suit are currently pending before the
Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 29, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ZYNEX INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against it and
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, according to the Company's March 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on
April 6, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et
al.).  On April 9 and 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits
alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).  The
consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement by
the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and failing to disclose material facts regarding the
financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and on July 5, 2010, the Company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The Company is awaiting a ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss from the Court.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
will continue to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.  The
Company has notified its directors and officers liability insurer
of the claim.  At this time, the Company is not able to determine
the likely outcome of the legal matters in the lawsuit, nor can it
estimate its potential financial exposure.  Litigation is subject
to inherent uncertainties, and if an unfavorable resolution of any
of these matters occurs, the Company's business, results of
operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.


* 3rd Cir. Directs Resentencing in Kevin Waltzer Fraud Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upon appeal by
the United States government, vacated district court orders
sentencing James Hall and Paul Negroni in relation to their
involvement in the fraud scheme propagated by Kevin Waltzer.

The Third Circuit opined that the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania committed procedural error in
reaching sentences for Messrs. Hall and Negroni.

Mr. Hall was sentenced to 15 month's imprisonment and Mr. Negroni
was sentenced to five years' probation, including nine month's in-
home detention.  Messrs. Hall and Negroni were said to have
participated in making fraudulent claims related to the massive
fraud scheme organized and conducted by Mr. Waltzer.  Between 2000
and 2008, Mr. Waltzer fraudulently obtained more than $40 million
in payments from settlement funds in three class action lawsuits:
In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, No. Civ. 94-
3996(RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), In re Cendant Corporation Litigation, No.
Civ. 98-1664(WHW) (D. N.J.), and In re BankAmerica Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. MDL 1264 (E.D. Mo.).  His scheme
involved the submission of false claims where ownership or the
trading of certain relevant securities during the relevant class
periods were asserted.

The U.S. government argued that the Hall and Negroni sentences are
unreasonable as the District Court failed to consider to certain
enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

The 3rd Circuit noted that the District Court did not acknowledge
that the sentence it chose deviated significantly from the
Sentencing Guidelines and did not provide justification for such
decision.  The Guidelines called for a range of 70 to 87 months'
imprisonment, but the District Court imposed a sentence of 60
months' probation with 9 months' home confinement for Mr. Negroni.

The inadequacy of the explanation for Mr. Negroni's sentence, the
3rd Circuit explained, is exacerbated by what appears to be an
inconsistency in the District Court's assessment of the relative
culpability of Messrs. Negroni and Hall.  The District Court based
its sentence in part on the government's assertion that Mr.
Negroni was less culpable than Hall but that assertion had been
effectively rejected by the District Court's own factual findings
and, therefore, could not warrant the probationary sentence, the
3rd Circuit noted.

"In summary, the District Court committed procedural error in not
adequately explaining Negroni's sentence and in basing that
sentence, in part, on the undermined assertion that Hall was more
culpable than Negroni," the 3rd Circuit stated.

A copy of the 3rd Circuit's March 29, 2011 opinion, penned by
Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan, and concurred by Circuit Judges
Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., and Walter King Stapleton, is available
at http://is.gd/8CLwSFat Leagle.com.


* Experts Expect Rise in Canadian Class Actions v. Telecom Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Fournier, writing for The Wire Report, reports that class
action lawsuits against telecom companies are expected to become a
growing trend as more Canadian provinces revise their consumer
protection laws, experts say.

"I think what you're seeing is governments attempting to leap into
the gap that has been caused by either the unwillingness or
lethargy on the part of federal authorities to legislate or
regulate in a particular area that is normally under federal
jurisdiction," Michael Janigan, executive director of consumer
group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), said in an
interview.


                            *********

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  * * *