CAR_Public/110406.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 68

                             Headlines

ADVANCED BATTERY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ASPEN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Drug's Gambling Effects
BABIES "R" US: July 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Managers' Class Certification Motion
BIG LOTS: "Seals" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif. Court

BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Class Suit in Preliminary Stages of Discovery
BIG LOTS: Plaintiff's Claim in "Caron" Suit Remains Pending
CEPHALON INC: Faces Class Action Over Valeant Buyout Offer
CHASE BANK: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit
CHASE BANK: Appeals From Credit Cardholders Deal Remain Pending

CHASE BANK: Continues to Defend Credit Card Biz-Related Suits
CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California
CHINA INTEGRATED: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
CITADEL BROADCASTING: Faces Two Class Suits Over Cumulus Merger
EMERGENT GROUP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suit Over Merger

ERICSSON LM: PCLG's Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Defends Against Class Suit Over Account Charges
FREDDIE MAC: 2008 Securities Fraud Class Action Dismissed
GENERAL MILLS: 11th Cir. Vacates YoPlus Class Certification
GENESCO INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in California

GENTA INC: Awaits Appellate Court Decision in "Collins" Suit
GENZYME CORP: Does Not Expect Class Suits to Delay Exchange Offer
GSI GROUP: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in "Trzeciakowski" Suit
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Rosen Investigates Securities Claims
LUBRIZOL: Being Sold for Too Little, Ohio Suit Claims

MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Pending
MEDIFAST INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Maryland
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Continues to Defend Texas Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL CITY BANK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit in Missouri

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Complains About Car-Seizure Program
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
SAJAN INC: Tiberius Litigation Terminated
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Continues to Defend New York Class Suits
SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Subsidiary Still Faces "King" Suit in S.C.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Tenn. Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Sheer" Suit in Arizona
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Still Stayed in California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Suit Still Stayed in California

SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
TALBOTS INC: Defends Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts
TJX COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Against FLSA-Violation Suits
TRANSMAGIC INC: Sued Over Surveillance Technology in Software
ULTA SALON: Disburses Payments to Class Members Under Settlement

ULTA SALON: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Wage-Related Suit
UNITEK GLOBAL: Employees Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend "Precision" Suit in New York
VCG HOLDING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Family Dog Merger

VCG HOLDING: Discovery Commences in "Johnson" Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Oral Argument Held in "Dukes" Case
WET SEAL: Appeal From 2006 Wage Suit Settlement Remains Pending
WET SEAL: Continues to Defend May 2007 & Sept. 2008 Class Suits

* Securities Fraud Class Actions v. Life Sciences Firms Up 53%



                             *********


ADVANCED BATTERY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABAT) during
the period from March 16, 2009 through March 29, 2011, seeking to
recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities
laws.

To join the Advanced Battery class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen,
Esq. or Timothy Brown, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may
also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or tbrown@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

The Complaint alleges that the Company made a number of
misrepresentations in its public filings with the Securities
Exchange Commission and in its press releases.  Namely, that: (1)
the Company misrepresented certain of its distribution
arrangements; (2) that Advanced Battery paid $1.5 million to
acquire another company that appears to be fake because its
location and existence could not be verified; (3) that Advanced
Battery paid $20 million to purchase a company, but failed to
disclose the related party nature of the transaction; and (4) the
Company misrepresented that it owned a Company subsidiary when it
did not, or the Company failed to disclose that the Company
entered into a related party transaction with the Company's
Chairman and CEO which resulted in the owner of that subsidiary
being the Chairman and CEO, and not Advanced Battery.

On March 30, 2011 an analyst firm called Variant View Research
issued a detailed report revealing the adverse information to the
market.  When these details of the Company's financial condition
came to light on March 30, 2011, the price of Advanced Battery's
stock fell over 40%, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Timothy Brown, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at, or
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or tbrown@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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

Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
                     Timothy Brown, Esq.
                     The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
                     275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
                     New York, NY 10016
                     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                     Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
                     Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
                     Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


ASPEN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Drug's Gambling Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Viellaris, writing for The Sunday Mail, reports that 20
Queenslanders who claim they became gambling addicts after taking
medication for Parkinson's disease are suing two pharmaceutical
giants.

Heartbreaking cases of financial ruin and family breakdowns are at
the center of a class action representing more than 100
Australians.

For the first time, Aspen Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Australia
have been legally served with proceedings claiming damages over
allegations concerning their drugs Permax and Cabaser.  The
lawsuit alleges negligence, defective product and failure to warn.

Pensioners Alan Burrows and Alan Clayton both claim they started
binge gambling on poker machines after they took Cabaser.
Mr. Burrows, 63, lost $300,000 while Mr. Clayton, 76, lost up to
$100,000.

The gambling allegedly ended when they stopped taking the drug.

Mr. Burrows, who lives at Morayfield, north of Brisbane, with his
wife Gaye, 64, alleges he began borrowing against the equity in
his house, which was paid off, when he started taking a generic
form of Cabaser.  Over seven years his bank kept giving him more
money and credit cards until the pair had to sell their house to
pay off debt.

"I started doing something I'd never done before and go and gamble
on pokies . . . almost every day," Mr. Burrows said.

"Once I started I had to keep going (by withdrawing money every
hour) until I couldn't get any more money.

"It was a compulsion to do it . . . you become really devious,
disgusting."

Despite seeing psychologists to find out why he couldn't stop
gambling, it was a media report in 2007 that identified potential
problems with Cabaser that caused him to end his treatment.

It was then he tallied up his losses.

"I cried.  I cried every night for months."

Mr. Clayton's partner Ann Nichols, 73, claimed Cabaser changed
their relationship.  Mr. Clayton was also taken off the drug after
seeing reports.

"I found him gambling all his money and I couldn't understand
why," Ms. Nichols said.  "I couldn't drag him away. You couldn't
stop him."

Anne Shortall, who is representing the class action on behalf of
Melbourne firm Arnold Thomas and Becker Lawyers, said the
compulsive behavior had been disastrous.

"The companies that have profited from the sale of the drugs
should be held accountable," she said.

A spokeswoman for the Therapeutic Goods Association said product
information for the drugs now warned that compulsive behavior,
including gambling and increased libido, was a potential side
effect.

The drug companies refused to comment.

They have yet to file a defense to the allegations.


BABIES "R" US: July 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C., and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC issued a
statement regarding the Baby Products Antitrust Settlement.

Two class action lawsuits are currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
lawsuits allege that Babies "R" Us conspired with each of
BabyBjorn AB, Britax Child Safety, Inc., Kids Line LLC, Maclaren
USA, Inc., Medela, Inc., Peg Perego, U.S.A., Inc., and Regal
Lager, Inc. in violation of federal antitrust laws.  As a result,
customers allegedly paid higher prices for certain products.  The
Defendants deny they did anything wrong.  The Court has not
decided who is right and who is wrong.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, each class member who
submits a valid claim may be entitled to money.  The Released
Defendants have agreed to make payments totaling $35,240,000.00(1)
to settle the claims made in these lawsuits.  For more details,
write to the address or visit the Web site below.

If you purchased one or more of the listed Baby Products directly
from Babies "R" Us or Toys "R" Us in the U.S. within the specific
time stated, then you are a member of a Settlement Subclass.  Be
sure to visit the Web site for complete class member definitions.

   Product:                               Purchased between:

   BabyBjorn baby carrier                 2/2/00 - 4/30/05

   Britax car seat                        1/1/99 - 1/31/11

   Kids Line products                     1/1/99 - 12/31/06

   Maclaren stroller                      10/1/99 - 1/31/11

   Medela Pump In Style breast pump       7/1/99 - 1/31/11

   Peg Perego car seat                    7/1/99 - 1/31/11

   Peg Perego high chair                  7/1/99 - 1/31/11

   Peg Perego stroller                    7/1/99 - 1/31/11

You have a choice of whether to stay in any Settlement Subclass or
not, and you must decide now.  Stay In: you will be legally bound
by the terms of the settlement, and you won't be able to sue
Defendants -- as part of any other lawsuit -- for any overcharges
relating to any of the listed products during the specified time
frames.  To receive benefits from the settlement, you must submit
a valid, sworn Claim Form.  The Claim Form must be postmarked,
faxed, or submitted online by Aug. 1, 2011.  Any member of any
Settlement Subclass that does not timely submit a valid, sworn
Claim Form will not be entitled to settlement benefits.  To file a
Claim Form, visit http://www.babyproductsantitrustsettlement.com/
Get Out: If you get out, you will not receive benefits from the
proposed settlement, but you will keep rights to sue Defendants
for these claims, and will not be bound by the terms of the
settlement.  To be excluded from the Settlement Subclasses, you
must act by June 6, 2011.  Object:  If you stay in the Settlement
Subclasses, you can object to the settlement by June 6, 2011.  For
more information, visit
http://www.babyproductsantitrustsettlement.com/

The Court has appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLC to represent the Settlement Subclasses.  You may hire
your own attorney, if you wish, at your own expense.

The Court, will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 6, 2011 at 10:00
a.m., to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and to approve attorney fees and costs.
The Hearing is at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.  If
you are a member of a Settlement Subclass who did not seek to be
excluded, you may write to the Court to object to the proposed
settlement, and you may ask to speak at the hearing about the
fairness of the proposed settlement.

For more information visit
http://www.babyproductsantitrustsettlement.com/, call 1-888-292-
8492, or write to Baby Products Antitrust Litigation Settlement,
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9679, Dublin, Ohio
43017-4979; or Text BBY to 247365 (standard carrier message and
data rates may apply).  Text STOP to end/HELP for help.

(1) The Settlement Amount was reduced from $35,500,000.00 because
Regal Lager, Inc. did not make its contribution to the Settlement
Fund.  As a result, claims against Regal Lager, Inc. will not be
released.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Managers' Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on the motion for class
certification in the 2009 New York action filed on behalf of the
Company's store managers, according to the Company's March 30,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, alleging that the Company violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store
managers as exempt employees.  In addition, the plaintiff seeks
class action treatment under New York law relating to those
assistant store managers working in the State of New York.  The
plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all other
individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs. On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order
rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant
store managers working in the Company's New York stores. On
March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class
certification under federal law, class certification under state
law and class notice. On May 14, the Company filed a memorandum in
opposition to plaintiff's motion. On January 20, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court deny the
plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff objected the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation, the Company responded in opposition to the
plaintiff's objection, and the Company awaits the Court's ruling.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in this lawsuit. The Company cannot make a
determination as to the probability of a loss contingency
resulting from this lawsuit or the estimated range of possible
loss, if any; however, the Company currently believes that such
claims asserted in the New York matter, both individually and in
the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: "Seals" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Big Lots, Inc., alleging
violations of wage and hour laws remain pending in a California
appellate court, according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended January 29, 2011.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that it violated certain California wage and hour laws by
misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon
termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed
meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation
time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the
Court denied, with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification
motion. On January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal, and the parties will have an opportunity to brief their
respective positions in the coming months. On December 2, 2010,
the California Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case
was fully briefed and that a hearing for oral argument will be
scheduled. The Company cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or
the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this
lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations, and liquidity.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Class Suit in Preliminary Stages of Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed against Big Lots, Inc., in 2010 is
in the preliminary stages of discovery, according to the Company's
March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for alleged
unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation,
improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. In August
2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original complaint, which
sought to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals who were similarly situated, filed an amended
complaint that removed the class and representative allegations
and asserted only individual actions. The Company has answered the
amended complaint and are in the preliminary stages of discovery.
The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals matter. The
Company cannot make a determination as to the probability of a
loss contingency resulting from the Avitia matter or the estimated
range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit;
however, the Company currently believes the Avitia matter will be
resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Plaintiff's Claim in "Caron" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A claim by one plaintiff in the "Caron" class action lawsuit
remains pending against Big Lots, Inc., according to the Company's
March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against the Company by a California resident. The first was filed
in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is
similar in nature to the Seals matter, which enabled the Company
to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second
and third matters, filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed
meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The
plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who
are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment
of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused
vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believed
these two matters overlapped and the Company successfully
consolidated the two cases before the United States District
Court, Central District of California. The Company believes the
remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims
released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa
matter, which was settled in 2008. On August 25, 2009, the Court
denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification
motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the
Company's motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the
claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. The Company
cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss
contingency resulting from the Caron matters or the estimated
range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations levied in these lawsuits;
however, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, and liquidity.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


CEPHALON INC: Faces Class Action Over Valeant Buyout Offer
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors of
Cephalon breached their fiduciary by rejecting a $73 per share,
$5.7 billion buyout offer from Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

A copy of the Complaint in Kaczak v. Buchi, et al., Case No. 6331
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/01/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Goldberg, Esq.
          BIGGS & BATTAGLIA
          921 North Orange Street
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 655-9677
          E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          FELGOISE LAW FIRM
          261 Old York Road, Suite 518
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 886-1900
          E-mail: felgoiselaw@verizon.net

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 685-0969
          E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          E-mail: rljacobs@pipeline.com


CHASE BANK: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, National Association, continues to defend itself
in a class action lawsuit alleging that credit card companies and
certain member banks violated the Sherman Act, according to the
Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard and
certain member banks including Bank of America, Chase USA, Capital
One, Citibank and others, conspired to set the price of
interchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
complaint further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.
Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
were filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the
setting of interchange, as well the associations' respective
rules. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
the cases in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial
proceedings. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on April
24, 2006. The consolidated complaint also added claims relating to
off line debit transactions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims that pre-date January 1, 2004, based on the settlement
and release of claims in the Wal-Mart case. On January 8, 2008,
the Court granted that motion and those claims have been
dismissed.

With respect to MasterCard, plaintiffs filed a first supplemental
complaint in May 2006 alleging that the offering violated Section
7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the
offering was a fraudulent conveyance. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss both of those claims. On November 25, 2008, the District
Court dismissed the supplemental complaint with leave to replead.
In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification and the defendants opposed that motion in October
2008. The court has not yet ruled on the class certification
motion.

In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard IPO
making antitrust claims similar to those that were set forth in
the original supplemental complaint, as well as the fraudulent
conveyance claim.

With respect to the Visa IPO, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental
complaint challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel
to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading.

On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Separate motions to
dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the
MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed. The motions to dismiss
have not yet been decided. Plaintiffs and defendants are briefing
motions for summary judgment. Chase USA cannot predict with any
degree of certainty the final outcome of the litigation described
above, its effect on the credit card industry or its effect on
Chase USA's credit card business.

The Chase Bank USA was formed in 1955 by the merger of the Chase
National Bank and the Bank of Manhattan Company. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, the largest corporate bank in the United States provides
a wide range of products and services to its customers.  Chase
Bank USA NA merged with Bank One in the year 2005. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA NA provides educational loan to students to meet the cost
of their education.


CHASE BANK: Appeals From Credit Cardholders Deal Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement in the consolidated class action
lawsuit filed by more than 20 individual credit cardholders remain
pending, according to Chase Bank USA, National Association's
March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in or around February 2001, more than twenty individual
credit cardholders filed putative class actions against VISA
International Service Association, Inc., VISA U.S.A., Inc.,
MasterCard International Incorporated and seven credit card
issuing banks and their parent companies, including Chase USA and
JPMorgan Chase & Co., alleging that VISA and MasterCard, together
with their members banks, had conspired to fix the price of
currency conversion services for credit card purchases made in a
foreign currency by United States cardholders. The plaintiffs also
asserted that disclosure requirements of the Truth-in-Lending Act
and regulations promulgated thereunder had not been observed. The
cases were consolidated in the District Court for the Southern
District of New York for pretrial purposes. On July 3, 2003, the
court denied in principal part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint. On November 12, 2003, the plaintiffs
moved for an order certifying the action as a class action, and by
Order dated October 15, 2004, the court granted class
certification.

On July 20, 2006, the parties in the consolidated case entered
into a nationwide settlement agreement, subject to court approval.
The court held a final approval hearing on March 31, 2008 and took
the matter under advisement. The defendants have denied any
wrongdoing, and the court has not made any ruling on the merits of
the case.

The settlement agreement includes provisions relating to
disclosures on billing statements and other documents, and a
settlement fund of $336,000,000 to pay monetary claims, the costs
of administering the settlement and notice to cardholders, court-
approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and court-approved awards
to the class representatives. Eligible cardholders will be able to
make monetary claims. The settlement documents include agreements
to settle certain related lawsuits, including the lawsuit filed by
Adam A. Schwartz against the VISA and MasterCard entities as
referenced above. The court granted final approval of the
settlement on October 22, 2009. Objectors to the settlement filed
appeals in the Second Circuit.

The Chase Bank USA was formed in 1955 by the merger of the Chase
National Bank and the Bank of Manhattan Company. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, the largest corporate bank in the United States provides
a wide range of products and services to its customers.  Chase
Bank USA NA merged with Bank One in the year 2005. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA NA provides educational loan to students to meet the cost
of their education.


CHASE BANK: Continues to Defend Credit Card Biz-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, National Association, continues to defend itself
in a number of class action lawsuits challenging policies and
practices of the Company's credit card business, according to the
Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A number of lawsuits seeking class action certification have been
filed in both state and federal courts against Chase USA. These
lawsuits challenge certain policies and practices of Chase USA's
credit card business. A few of these lawsuits have been
conditionally certified as class actions. Chase USA has defended
itself against claims in the past and intends to continue to do so
in the future. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of
any of these lawsuits, Chase USA believes that any liability that
might result from any of these lawsuits will not have a material
adverse effect on the credit card receivables.

The Chase Bank USA was formed in 1955 by the merger of the Chase
National Bank and the Bank of Manhattan Company. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, the largest corporate bank in the United States provides
a wide range of products and services to its customers.  Chase
Bank USA NA merged with Bank One in the year 2005. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA NA provides educational loan to students to meet the cost
of their education.


CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that China Intelligent Lighting
and Electronics, China Century Dragon Media, China Electric Motor,
and China Agritech all face federal class actions accusing them of
propping up their share price by hiding adverse information about
their economic performance and operations.

A copy of the Complaint in Calcagno v. China Agritech, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02800 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/04/ChinaAgritech.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael 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
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 N. Federal Hwy, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

                     Saxena White's Statement

Saxena White P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased China
Agritech, Inc. common stock between the period of Feb. 8, 2010
through March 11, 2011, inclusive.

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

After the close of trading on March 11, 2011, NASDAQ announced
that it was halting trading due to the pending release of news.
On March 14, 2011, the Company issued a release announcing the
resignation of its independent outside auditor, Ernst & Young Hua
Ming.  The Company announced that it formed a Special Committee to
investigate accounting irregularities and delayed the filing of it
10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The stock
has yet to re-open for trading.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com/

If you purchased the common stock of China Agritech between the
period of Feb. 8, 2010 through March 11, 2011, inclusive, you may
contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights and interests.

If you purchased China Agritech shares during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on
your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than April 12,
2011.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of
your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Greg Stone, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                 gstone@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/


CHINA INTEGRATED: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of China Integrated Energy,
Inc., between March 31, 2010 and March 16, 2011, inclusive.

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

The Complaint charges China Integrated Energy and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws.  China Integrated Energy engages in the wholesale
distribution of various oil products -- including gasoline, diesel
and naphtha -- to retail service station distributors and directly
to end users through its retail gas stations.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the
Company's financial performance, business prospects and financial
condition were materially false and misleading.

On March 16, 2011, analyst firm Sinclair Upton Research issued a
report alleging that China Integrated Energy concealed a host of
transactions between the Company and its officers and directors
that had the effect of funneling cash to these officers and
directors.  Citing Chinese State Administration for Industry and
Commerce filings, the report stated that China Integrated Energy
misrepresented its financial performance, business prospects and
financial condition to investors, and claimed that the Company's
chief executive officer had been funneling money to corporations
owned by his son.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $0.95 per share, or
more than 15%, and declined a further 24.6% the next day,
March 17, 2011, to close at $3.77 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than May 24, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

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


CITADEL BROADCASTING: Faces Two Class Suits Over Cumulus Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation is facing two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits in Nevada in connection with
its merger with Cumulus Media Inc., according to the Company's
March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Cumulus Media Inc., Cadet Holding Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Cumulus and Cadet Merger Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo.

On March 14, 2011, the Company, its board of directors, and
Cumulus were named in a putative shareholder class action
complaint filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by
a purported Citadel shareholder.  On March 23, 2011, these same
defendants, as well as Cadet Holding Corporation and Cadet Merger
Corporation, were named in a second putative shareholder class
action complaint filed in the same court by another purported
Citadel shareholder.  The complaints allege that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Cumulus
Merger for allegedly inadequate consideration and following an
allegedly unfair sale process.  The complaint in the first action
also alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by allegedly withholding material information relating to
the Cumulus Merger.  The two complaints further allege that the
Company and Cumulus aided and abetted the Citadel directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the complaint filed in the
second action alleges, additionally, that Cadet Holding Company
and Cadet Merger Corporation aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints seek, among other
things, a declaration that the action can proceed as a class
action, an order enjoining the completion of the Cumulus Merger,
rescission of the merger, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems just and proper.  The complaint filed in the
second action also seeks rescissory damages.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend against these actions.


EMERGENT GROUP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Group Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a consolidated class action relating to its proposed
merger, according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 6, 2011, Universal Hospital Services, Inc., and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with the Company.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Parent and Merger Sub commenced on March 2,
2011, a tender offer to purchase all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.04 per share,
at a purchase price of $8.46 per share in cash to be followed by a
merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company with the Company
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Since February 22, 2011, three putative shareholder class action
complaints challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement were filed on behalf of three separate plaintiffs in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los
Angeles against the Company, Parent, Purchaser and the individual
members of the Company Board.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that the members of the Company Board breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of the Company by
attempting to sell the Company by means of an unfair process with
preclusive deal protection devices at an unfair price of $8.46 in
cash per Share and by entering into the Merger Agreement,
approving the Offer and the proposed Merger, engaging in self
dealing and failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
Company to its public shareholders.  The complaints further allege
that the Company, Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the complaints allege
that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict
the Company's ability to negotiate with rival bidders.  The
complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive
relief prohibiting the Defendants from consummating the Merger and
other forms of equitable relief.  On March 10, 2011, the
Plaintiffs and Defendants executed a stipulation to consolidate
the three lawsuits, and on March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the
consolidation of the lawsuits for all purposes, including pre-
trial proceedings into Lead Case No. BC-455715 and renamed the
consolidated action "In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder
Litigation."

On March 24, 2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of the consolidated action was agreed to by the
Parties.  While the Defendants deny the allegations made in the
complaints, they have agreed to enter into the MOU to avoid the
costs and disruptions of any further litigation and to permit the
timely consummation of the Offer and the Merger.  The MOU
describes the terms that the Parties agree to include in the final
settlement agreement concerning the action and describes the
actions that the Parties will take or refrain from taking between
the date of the MOU and the date that the Settlement Agreement is
finally approved.

The MOU, among other things, provides that the Company will amend
its previously filed SEC Schedule 14D-9 to include certain
supplemental disclosures.  The MOU also provides that the
Settlement Agreement will require the Parties to seek an order
enjoining all proceedings in connection with the consolidated
action complaints and any additional actions alleging claims that
are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  In addition,
the MOU provides that the Settlement Agreement will include a
release by the Plaintiffs and the settlement class in favor of the
Defendants and their related parties from any claims that arose
pursuant to or are related to the Offer or the Merger.  The
Defendants have agreed that the Company or its successor or their
respective insurers will pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses as are awarded by the court not to exceed $225,000,
subject to court approval of the Settlement Agreement and the
consummation of the Offer and the Merger.

The Defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the consolidated action complaints, and
specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was
required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
However, the Defendants considered it desirable that the action be
settled primarily to avoid the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve all of the claims that were or could have been
brought in the action being settled.  In addition, the Company
desired to provide additional information to its stockholders at a
time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Offer
or the Merger.


ERICSSON LM: PCLG's Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by the Public Citizen Litigation Group from a
court ruling which dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against
Ericsson LM Telephone Co. remains pending, according to the
Company's March 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Together with most of the mobile communications industry, Ericsson
has been named a defendant in two class action lawsuits in the US,
in which plaintiffs allege that adverse health effects could be
associated with mobile phone usage:

   (1) In September 2008, the federal court in Pennsylvania
       dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as preempted by federal
       law.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently
       affirmed this ruling.  In February 2011, the Public Citizen
       Litigation Group filed an appeal with US Supreme Court.

   (2) In July 2010, the District of Columbia Superior Court
       granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
       to dismiss.  In September 2010, the plaintiff filed a third
       amended complaint.  In October 2010, the defendants moved
       to dismiss the District of Columbia case. In February 2011,
       the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia dismissed
       with prejudice Ericsson from the case.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Defends Against Class Suit Over Account Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First California Financial Group, Inc. relates in its March 30,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, that it is
defending itself against a class action complaint over charges on
customer deposit accounts.

In February 2011, First California Bank was named as a defendant
in a putative class action, alleging that the manner in which the
Bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts
breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and
violates the California Unfair Competition Law.  The action also
alleges that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its
consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes
conversion and unjustly enriches the Bank.  The action is pending
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  The action seeks to
establish a class consisting of all similarly situated customers
of the Bank in the State of California.  The case is in early
stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.
No class has been certified in the case.  At this state of the
case, the Company has not established an accrual for probable
losses as the probability of a material adverse result cannot be
determined and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any.  The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.

First California Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.fcalgroup.com/-- (NASDAQ: FCAL) is the holding company
of First California Bank.  The company specializes in serving the
comprehensive financial needs of the commercial market,
particularly small- and middle-sized businesses, professional
firms and commercial real estate development and construction
companies.  Committed to providing the best client service
available in its markets, First California offers a full line of
quality commercial banking products through 17 full-service branch
offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego and Ventura counties


FREDDIE MAC: 2008 Securities Fraud Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac announced the dismissal of a putative class action
securities lawsuit filed against the company in federal court in
August 2008.

Judge John Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has granted Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss
all claims asserted against Freddie Mac in a putative securities
fraud class action filed against the company and certain of its
former senior officers.  Judge Keenan found not actionable all
alleged misstatements and omissions regarding Freddie Mac's
involvement in the subprime and Alt-A mortgage markets, holding
that plaintiffs failed adequately to plead that Freddie Mac's
disclosures on those issues were either false or misleading.

The judge also dismissed alleged misrepresentation claims relating
to Freddie Mac's capital adequacy, core capital, internal controls
and underwriting processes.  The court granted the plaintiffs 60
days to file an amended complaint, if they choose to do so.

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide
liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential
mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the
nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders.  Over the years,
Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and
more than five million renters.


GENERAL MILLS: 11th Cir. Vacates YoPlus Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the class
certification of a lawsuit that says General Mills misrepresented
the digestive benefits of its YoPlus yogurt.

"While we agree with the legal analysis of the District Court,
because the definition of the class it certified was in conflict
with that analysis, we are uncertain of exactly what class it
intended to certify," Judge Peter Fay wrote for the three-judge
panel.

Lead plaintiff Julie Fitzpatrick sued General Mills for deceptive
trade practices and breach of warranty in March 2009.

"YoPlus is an ordinary yogurt supplemented with probiotic
bacteria, inulin, and vitamins A and D," the ruling states.  "The
mixture of probiotic bacteria and inulin in YoPlus allegedly
provides habitual consumers with digestive health benefits by
aiding in the promotion of digestive health."

Ms. Fitzpatrick says she ate about 96 cartons of YoPlus in 2008
but never experienced any of the advertised benefits.

"She contends that General Mills' digestive health benefit claim
has allowed General Mills to sell YoPlus for an average of 44%
more than Yoplait Original brand yogurt despite that fact that it
provides no digestive health benefit that cannot be obtained by
eating normal yogurt," the ruling states.

The Southern District of Florida denied class certification for
the breach-of-warranty claim, but granted it for the claim under
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA).  The
judge defined the class as "all persons who purchased YoPlus in
the State of Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health
benefit."

General Mills challenged the definition, arguing that each member
of the class should have to prove they bought YoPlus specifically
for the advertised benefits.

The federal judge had repeatedly said that the class members could
simply prove that such advertising would deceive an objective
reasonable person, rather than reliance on the allegedly false
statement.

But the Atlanta-based appellate court found the definition of the
class does not follow this reasoning, as it limits the class to
only those who bought YoPlus "to obtain its claimed digestive
health benefit."

"If the definition of the class had been in accord with the legal
analysis, we would have readily affirmed," Judge Fay wrote.
"However, at the end of the District Court's order, it defined the
class in a manner which seems to conflict with its earlier sound
analysis."

A copy of the ruling in Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc.,
No. 10-11064 (11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201011064.pdf


GENESCO INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. is facing two putative class actions filed in
California, according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, a putative class action styled Fraser v. Genesco
Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  On March 4, 2011, a putative class action
styled Pabst v. Genesco Inc. et al. was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco.  Both
complaints allege that the Company's retail stores in California
violated the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and
other California law through customer information collection
practices, and both seek civil penalties, damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and other
relief.  The Company disputes the material allegations in both
complaints and intends to defend the actions vigorously.


GENTA INC: Awaits Appellate Court Decision in "Collins" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Genta Incorporated is awaiting a decision from an appellate court
in the class action lawsuit captioned Collins v. Warrell, Docket
No. L-3046-08, according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2008, several of the Company's stockholders, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a
class action complaint against the Company, its Board of
Directors, and certain of its executive officers in Superior Court
of New Jersey, captioned Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.
The complaint alleged that in issuing convertible notes in June
2008, the Company's Board of Directors, and certain officers
breached their fiduciary duties, and the Company aided and abetted
the breach of fiduciary duty.  On March 20, 2009, the Superior
Court of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division.  On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of new evidence,
which was denied on June 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs also asked the
Appellate Division for a temporary remand to permit the Superior
Court judge to resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs
sought to raise and the Appellate Division granted the motion for
temporary remand. Following the briefing and a hearing, the
Superior Court denied the motion for relief from judgment on
August 28, 2009. Thus, this matter proceeded in the Appellate
Division. Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was
filed on October 28, 2009, and the Company's responsive brief was
filed on January 27, 2010. The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed
on March 15, 2010. The Company is currently awaiting a decision
from the Appellate Division on this matter. At this time, the
Company cannot estimate when the Appellate Division will rule on
the appeal. The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense
of this matter.

Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, Genta Incorporated (OTCBB: GETA.OB)
-- http://www.genta.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company with a
diversified product portfolio that is focused on delivering
innovative products for the treatment of patients with cancer.


GENZYME CORP: Does Not Expect Class Suits to Delay Exchange Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 29, 2011, Genzyme Corporation filed Amendment No. 28 to
its Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9,
originally filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 7, 2010, in order to provide an
update on litigation matters related to the exchange offer by GC
Merger Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of sanofi-aventis, for all
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock. The Company does
not expect litigation to delay the consummation of the exchange
offer.

On March 18, 2011, the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed
an Emergency Motion to Intervene in a consolidated action filed by
Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, Alan R. Kahn, David
Shade and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
allegedly on behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the
Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court
(Suffolk County) against the Company, the Company's executive
officers and the Company directors. This motion was denied on
March 23, 2011. The court also ordered on March 23 that a lawsuit
previously filed by the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund
allegedly on behalf of a putative class of shareholders in
Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex County) against the
Company, the Company's directors, Sanofi and Offeror be
transferred to Suffolk County and consolidated with the
Consolidated State Action.

On March 22, 2011, Jerry L. & Mena M. Morelos Revocable Trust,
Bernard Malina, Emanuel Resendes, William S. Field, III, Trustee
U/A Dated October 12, 1991 by William S. Field Jr. and Warren
Pinchuck, the plaintiffs in a consolidated action on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company, the Company's
executive officers and the Company directors moved for leave to
file a Second Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint. The SACC
would allege that the defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, issuing a false and
misleading Schedule 14D-9. The SACC would also allege that Sanofi
aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The suit would seek, among other relief (i)
class action status, (ii) an order enjoining the defendants from
completing the merger unless they provide shareholders with
additional information, (iii) an order directing the defendants to
comply with their fiduciary duty to disclose to shareholders all
material information, and (iv) an award to the plaintiffs of the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses. The plaintiffs also indicated that they would
not seek to preliminarily enjoin the exchange offer and the merger
between the Company and Offeror.

On March 23, 2011, the Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex
County) also denied the motion of previous derivative plaintiff
Local No. 38 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Pension Fund to amend their complaint and denied plaintiffs'
emergency motion to consolidate the state derivative actions with
the Consolidated State Action.

Also on March 23, 2011, the Business Litigation Session of the
Massachusetts Superior Court granted the motion of the plaintiffs
in the Consolidated State Action to supplement their Consolidated
Class Action Complaint but denied the plaintiffs' request for
expedited discovery. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs'
supplement to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint does not
present a "sufficiently colorable claim" to merit expedited
discovery and that plaintiffs' discovery requests were overbroad
and unduly burdensome." Following this ruling, the plaintiffs in
this action have indicated that they do not intend to pursue a
preliminary injunction based on the allegations in the supplement
to the Consolidated Class Action.

On March 24, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated State Action
filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to "escrow
a portion of the acquisition proceeds for the payment of
plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses." In this
motion, the plaintiffs sought to have the court require that $1.9
million of the amounts otherwise payable to Company shareholders
be placed in an escrow account pending a hearing on a purportedly
forthcoming application by the plaintiffs for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. A hearing on this motion before the
court was held on March 29, 2011. On March 30, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.


GSI GROUP: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in "Trzeciakowski" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted final approval in February of the settlement in the
putative shareholder class action filed against GSI Group Inc. by
Wiltold Trzeciakowski, according to the Company's March 30, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its
results for the quarter ended September 26, 2008, and the
announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative
shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, a former officer and a then-
current officer and director, entitled Wiltold Trzeciakowski,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GSI
Group Inc., Sergio Edelstein, and Robert Bowen, Case No. 08-cv-
12065 (GAO).  The complaint alleged that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought recovery of damages in an unspecified
amount.  In May 2010, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the litigation.  The settlement covered
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between February 27,
2007 and June 30, 2009.

On February 22, 2011, the District Court entered an order granting
final approval of the previously announced settlement in the
putative shareholder class action.  The Company's contribution to
the settlement amount was limited to the Company's self-insured
retention under its directors and officers liability policy.  As a
result of the court's final approval of the settlement, 993,743
shares of the Company's common stock that were placed in a reserve
account and held in escrow for the benefit of the holders of
Section 510(b) claims, as defined in the Company's Final Chapter
11 Plan, were released to the Company's shareholders entitled to
such shares.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Rosen Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it is investigating
potential securities claims against Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.
resulting from allegations that the Company may have issued
materially false financial statements and information to
investors.

Prior to market open on April 1, 2011 trading in the Company's
stock was halted.  Thereafter, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the Company would not be able to timely release
its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
The announcement also revealed that "the accounting review
conducted to date had identified various concerns" that prompted
the Company's audit committee to undertake an independent
investigation.

Later in the day, the Company filed an 8-K with the SEC under item
4.02 entitled "Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial
Statements."  According to the 8-K, the Company's auditors
informed the Company "that there is a possibility that we may be
required to make certain adjustments to certain of our previously
issued financial statements, and that such previously issued
financial statements may not be relied upon."

The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of Keyuan investors to recover investment losses.  If
you purchased or acquired Keyuan securities at any time prior to
April 1, 2011, please visit the Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/
for more information.  You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


LUBRIZOL: Being Sold for Too Little, Ohio Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lubrizol shareholders claim
company insiders enriched themselves at shareholders' expense by
agreeing to sell out too cheaply to Berkshire Hathaway, for $135
per share or $9.7 billion, in a class action in Lake County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sair v. Hambrick, et al., Case No. 11-
cv-000807 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Lake Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/01/BerkHath.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Ciano, Esq.
          Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq.
          CIANO & GOLDWASSER, L.L.P.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W.
          1610 Midland Building
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 658-9900
          E-mail: pac@c-g-law.com
                  asg@c-g-law.com

               - and -

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


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc., continues to defend itself against a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged
participant in the Company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment
Plan.

On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the
401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing
Plan between February 27, 2005 and the present. The lawsuit has
been conditionally certified as a class action. The complaint
alleges that the Company, as well as members of the Company's
board of directors and certain members of senior management,
breached various fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act to participants in the 401(k) Plan
and the May Plan, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in
relation to the integration of the acquired May operations,
resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the Company's
stock price and "imprudent investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan in Macy's stock. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and costs. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- with corporate offices
in Cincinnati and New York, is one of the nation's premier
retailers, with fiscal 2009 sales of $23.5 billion.  The company
operates about 850 department stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names of Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The company also operates http://macys.com/and
http://bloomingdales.com/


MEDIFAST INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel disclosed that a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of investors who
purchased Medifast, Inc. (NYSE: MED) securities between the period
of March 4, 2010 through and including March 10, 2011, 2011.  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.

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.
After this news was disclosed, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $16.63 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may request no later than
May 17, 2011, that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall
recovery for class members.

The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel has not filed a lawsuit against
the defendants.  If you currently own shares of Medifast, Inc.
and/or purchased shares during the class period and would like to
learn more about any potential claims or you wish to discuss these
matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights, please contact Marc S. Henzel (610) 660-8000,
Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com  or to sign up online, visit the firms
Web site at http://www.henzellaw.com/

Contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
         Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
         E-mail: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com
         Telephone: 610-660-8000
         Web site: http://www.henzellaw.com/


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Continues to Defend Texas Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., continues to defend itself in the
federal securities class action lawsuit pending in a Texas
district court, according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form
10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended January 29, 2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case is
styled Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v.
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265. The class
period alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007 to
January 9, 2008. The primary allegations are that the Company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged class
period. The complaint seeks damages based on the decline in the
Company's stock price following the announcement of lowered
guidance on October 10, 2007, November 28, 2007, and January 9,
2008. The case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12,
2010, and is awaiting a decision from the Court. The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to mount a
vigorous defense; the Company is unable to determine the likely
outcome at this time.

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. -- http://www.menswearhouse.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of men's suits and a provider of tuxedo rental
product in the United States and Canada.  At Jan. 30, 2010, the
company operated 1,259 retail stores, with 1,142 stores in the
United States and 117 stores in Canada.  Its United States retail
stores are operated under the brand names of Men's Wearhouse (581
stores), Men's Wearhouse and Tux (454 stores) and K&G (107 stores)
in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  Its Canadian stores
are operated under the brand name of Moores Clothing for Men in 10
provinces.  It also operates a corporate apparel and uniform
program (operated as Twin Hill) and, in the Houston, Texas area, a
retail dry cleaning and laundry business (operated as MW
Cleaners).  At Jan. 30, 2010, it operated 581 Men's Wearhouse
apparel stores in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  These
stores are referred to as Men's Wearhouse stores or traditional
stores.


NATIONAL CITY BANK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John D. Bates, of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, preliminarily approved a class action
settlement in a lawsuit brought against National City Bank on
behalf of certain National City bank account holders.  National
City was merged into PNC Bank, N.A., on Nov. 6, 2009, and this
settlement is limited to those people who were customers of
National City before the merger.  Consistent with the Court's
orders, the settling parties initiated notice to the settlement
class members on April 1.

The Settlement Class includes all persons who hold or ever held a
National City Account who at any time from July 1, 2004, through
and including Aug. 15, 2010, incurred at least one Overdraft Fee
associated with at least one National City Debit Card Transaction
that was not previously reversed, refunded or returned.

The settlement will establish a Settlement Fund of $12 million.
Notices will be mailed directly to Settlement Class Members,
appear on PNC's Web site, http://www.PNC.com/ (on the online
accounts of former National City customers), and are scheduled to
appear in selected local newspapers leading up to a hearing on
July 15, 2011, when the Court will consider whether to grant final
approval to the settlement.

The Court has appointed Hassan A. Zavareei and Jonathan K. Tycko,
of Tycko & Zavareei LLP in Washington, D.C., as Proposed
Settlement Class Counsel to represent the Class.

Those affected by this settlement can submit a claim for benefits
or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement
and its terms.  The deadline for exclusions and objections is
June 27, 2011.  The claim deadline is August 26, 2011.

A toll-free number, 1-866-960-5706, has been established in the
case known as Trombley, et al. v. National City Bank, et al., Case
No. 1:10-CV-00232, along with a Web site --
http://www.NationalCityClass.com/-- where the notice, claim form
and settlement agreement may be obtained.  Those affected may also
write to National City Overdraft Settlement, PO Box 4098,
Portland, OR 97208-4098.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit titled "James Baker v. Century Financial,
et al," currently pending in Missouri, according to the Company's
March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In February 2004, the Bank was named in a class action lawsuit
titled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," alleging various
violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and
receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or
in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees,
interest rates, and other charges.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected charges,
interest thereon, the right to rescind the mortgage loans or a
right to offset any illegal collected charges and interest against
the principal amounts due on the loans and punitive damages.  In
March 2005, the Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations was
denied by the trial court without comment.  The Bank's
"preemption" motion was denied in August 2006.  The Bank has
answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have exchanged
and answered initial discovery requests.  When the record is more
fully developed, the Bank says it intends to raise the limitations
issue again in the form of a motion for summary judgment.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Complains About Car-Seizure Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that Philadelphia
Police are enforcing a vast and unconstitutional car-seizure
program called LiveStop, impounding thousands of vehicles for
having expired registration stickers and other minor violations, a
class action claims in state court.

"The defendants have implemented and enforced a policy known as a
'LiveStop,' whereby police officers conduct traffic stops of
vehicles with expired registration stickers, and for other
enumerated violations, and improperly impound the vehicles without
adhering to procedural due process required by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the class claims.

The named plaintiffs are an attorney and his daughter, a first-
grade teacher, whose father's car was impounded on March 25 when
she was driving it with her dad's permission.  They claim the city
and its police force are leaving drivers stranded on the street
"with deliberate indifference to the due process rights of
citizens."

Danielle Sheller says police pulled her over a week ago as she was
driving to a florist, and told her the car's registration was
expired.  A tow truck belonging to co-defendant Philadelphia
Parking Authority towed the car away, despite Sheller's tearful
pleas that "the defendant police officers speak to her father, who
would confirm that he was registering the car in real time over
the Internet," the Shellers say.

"Crying and terrified" in an unfamiliar and rough part of town,
police abandoned the young schoolteacher, with her laptop computer
and diamond engagement ring: a violation of the Authority's policy
that "Under no circumstances shall the occupants of any vehicle
impounded be abandoned on any city street or highway," the
Shellers say.

"At around the same time, Mr. Sheller was able to get his car
registered online," meaning the "car was properly registered at
the time the PPD unlawfully impounded the vehicle," the Shellers
say.
Adding injury to insult, a GPS device worth $175 was stolen
because the impounded car was not properly secured, the Shellers
say.

Mr. Sheller and his daughter want the LiveStop program scrapped,
damages and costs.

Alternatively, they ask that the court "require officers to call
vehicle owners, or otherwise notify them of the 'Live Stop,' and
inform them of their right to register their vehicles online, in
real time, prior to enforcing any immobilization or impoundment
procedures."

Danielle Sheller also sued the two officers who pulled her over.
She says the cops intentionally inflicted emotional distress by
"laughing at her while she cried" and "leaving her stranded in an
unfamiliar neighborhood."  Their "extreme and outrageous conduct,"
caused fear and "uncontrollable shaking," she says.

A copy of the Complaint in Sheller, et al. v. The City of
Philadelphia, Case No. 110303375 (Pa. C.P. Ct., Philadelphia
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/01/LiveStop.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.
          Matthew C. Monroe, Esq.
          SHELLER, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-7300
          E-mail: sasheller@sheller.com
                  mmonroe@sheller.com


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to remain a defendant in a
California securities class action complaint even as certain
plaintiffs have been removed and some have been added, according
to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.  The Company has also obtained an order
compelling insurance coverage of the lawsuit from its insurance
carrier.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all loan
note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper Marketplace offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages
and the right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009, and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.  On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company, has denied coverage.   On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay Prosper's past
and future defense costs in the class action suit up to $2
million.  On February 24, 2011, Greenwich made a payment to
Prosper in the amount of $1,728,273 to reimburse Prosper for the
defense costs it had already incurred in the class action suit.
Greenwich is required to reimburse Prosper for up to an additional
$271,727 in defense costs for the class action suit going forward.
Each such reimbursement will be due within 30 days of Prosper
incurring any such costs and presenting the applicable invoice to
Greenwich.   Greenwich is also required to pay Prosper pre-
judgment interest on the defense costs incurred by Prosper in the
class action suit prior to the Court's decision.  The amount of
this pre-judgment interest is $164,828.  Greenwich will be
required to make this pre-judgment interest payment to Prosper
when a final judgment has been entered in the insurance suit.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. -- http://www.prosper.com/-- is a peer-
to-peer lending marketplace, with more than 1,050,000 members and
over $225,000,000 in funded loans.  Prosper allows people to
invest in each other in a way that is financially and socially
rewarding.  On Prosper, borrowers list loan requests between
$2,000 and $25,000 and individual lenders invest as little as $25
in each loan listing they select. Prosper handles the funding and
servicing of the loan on behalf of the matched borrowers and
investors.  Prosper was co-founded by Chris Larsen, who also co-
founded E-LOAN. Prosper has raised $57.7 million in venture
capital and is backed by financial and technology luminaries
including Jim Breyer of Accel Partners, Omidyar Network, Capital
One Co-founder Nigel Morris of QED Investors, Court Coursey of
TomorrowVentures, CompuCredit, and Volition Capital.


SAJAN INC: Tiberius Litigation Terminated
-----------------------------------------
The lawsuit commenced by Sajan, Inc., and its affiliates against
Tiberius Capital II, LLC, has been terminated after Tiberius
failed to appeal the case's dismissal, according to the Company's
March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 8, 2009, legal counsel for Tiberius Capital II, LLC,
sent by e-mail to MathStar's legal counsel a copy of a Complaint
labeled "Draft -- Subject to Completion."  The Tiberius Complaint
named Tiberius, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as plaintiff.  It named MathStar, Feltl and Company,
Sajan, Inc., Perkins Capital Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins,
Merrill A. McPeak, Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P.
Sullivan, as defendants (collectively, the "Minnesota Parties").
The Tiberius Complaint stated that Tiberius was bringing a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all those who
purchased MathStar's securities between May 11, 2009 and
September 30, 2009 alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

On October 14, 2009, the Minnesota Parties filed a Complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
captioned "MathStar, Inc., Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Inc.,
Perkins Capital Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A.
McPeak, Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan,
Plaintiffs, v. Tiberius Capital II, LLC, Defendant" alleging a
claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage
against Tiberius on behalf of MathStar, Sajan, Inc. and Feltl.

On November 9, 2009, Tiberius served and filed its Answer and
Counterclaim denying liability under the Minnesota Complaint and
asserting substantially the same claims set forth in the Tiberius
Complaint and, in addition, asserting common law claims for fraud
against the Minnesota Parties except Sajan, Inc., and against all
of the Minnesota Parties for wrongful interference with the
prospectively advantageous, successful completion of its tender
offer for MathStar's shares of common stock.  On December 8, 2009,
Tiberius served and filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaim in
which it added a jurisdictional allegation and asserted claims for
declaratory relief under its other claims.  The Minnesota Parties
filed timely motions to dismiss the Counterclaim and Amended
Counterclaim on several grounds.  The motions were fully briefed,
and oral arguments took place before the Court on February 9,
2010.

On April 26, 2010, the United States District Court, District of
Minnesota granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
counterclaims asserted by Tiberius.  Thereafter, the entire action
was dismissed and judgment was entered in favor of the Minnesota
Parties.  Tiberius did not appeal this decision and therefore the
lawsuits have been finally terminated without any liability of any
of the Minnesota Parties.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Continues to Defend New York Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Ltd. continues to defend itself in
two class action lawsuits pending in two district courts in New
York, according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended January 29, 2011.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary
of Signet, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York federal court. In September 2008, the US Equal Opportunities
Commission filed a lawsuit against Sterling in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York. Sterling denies the
allegations from both parties and intends to defend them
vigorously. If, however, it is unsuccessful in either defense,
Sterling could be required to pay substantial damages.

Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/--
formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with
stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland
and Channel Islands.  In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009,
Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states.  Its stores trade
nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay),
and regionally under a number of mall-based brands.  Destination
superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry
(Jared). In the United Kinfdom, the stores trade as H.Samuel,
Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in High Street
locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian
traffic) or shopping malls.  The United Kingdom division operated
558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14 stores in the
Republic of Ireland.  The Company operates in two geographical
segments: the United States division (approximately 76% of sales)
and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24% of sales).


SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Subsidiary Still Faces "King" Suit in S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Springleaf Finance Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit styled King
v. American General Finance, Inc., filed in South Carolina,
according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

In the King lawsuit, filed in 1996, Plaintiffs assert class action
claims against the Company's South Carolina operating entity for
alleged violations of S.C. Code Section 37-10-102(a), which
requires, inter alia, a lender making a mortgage loan to ascertain
the preference of the borrower as to an attorney who will
represent the borrower in closing the loan.  The Plaintiffs and
SLFI have filed various motions, which remain pending.  The case
was recently reassigned to a new judge, who will hear and rule on
the motions, including Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
SLFI has filed additional motions to be heard by the new judge.
Based on Plaintiffs' allegations, if the case proceeds as a class
action and if the court should find liability, the size of the
class will range from about 5,000 to 9,000 members depending upon
the final class definition.  The statute provides for a penalty
range of $1,500 to $7,500 per class member, to be determined by
the judge.  SLFI is defending the case vigorously.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is awaiting a ruling on its summary
judgment motion in a class action lawsuit filed by Leonel Garza on
behalf of owner-operators in Maricopa County, Arizona, according
to the Company's March 29, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission of the year ended December 31,
2010.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472. The putative class originally involved
certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a
2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The
putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed
owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted
and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.
The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008,
the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence
of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of
Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona
Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining
that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction
to reverse the trial court's original denial of class
certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, plaintiff
renewed his motion for class certification and expanded it to
include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers
or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after
January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference
to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial
court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and
expanding the class to include employees. The Company filed a
motion for summary judgment to dismiss class certification, urging
dismissal on several grounds including, but not limited to, the
lack of an employee class representative, and because the named
owner-operator class representative only contracted with the
Company for a 3-month period under a one-year contract that no
longer exists. The Company intends to pursue all available
appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company
believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,
further, that the claims raised have no merit or are subject to
mandatory arbitration. The Maricopa County trial court's decision
pertains only to the issue of class certification, and the Company
retains all of the Company's defenses against liability and
damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such
final disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Tenn. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by former students of its
driving academy in Tennessee, according to the Company's March 29,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission of the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint. The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division. The putative class involves former students of the
Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against
the Company for the suspension of their CDLs and any CDL retesting
that may be required of the former students by the relevant state
department of motor vehicles. The allegations arise from the
Tennessee Department of Safety, or TDOS, having released a general
statement questioning the validity of CDLs issued by the State of
Tennessee in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in
the State of Tennessee. The Company has filed an answer to the Ham
Complaint. The Company has also filed a cross claim against the
Commissioner of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial
declaration and judgment that the Company did not engage in any
wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a grant of injunctive
relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or
publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue
corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications.
The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of the Company's defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively:
Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or
the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen
Complaint. Both putative class action complaints involve former
students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are
seeking relief against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor
vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and
any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by
the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint. The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not. The Company denies
the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend the Company's position. The McAlarnen Complaint has been
dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has
elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing
of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages.  The
Company has filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint. The
Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for
a judicial declaration and judgment that the Company did not
engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request
for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.

On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class
action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in
the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint. The two matters
are (i) Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of
the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed
on May 7, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and (ii) Marylene
Broadnax on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Swift Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on
May 22, 2009 in the Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of
Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint. While the Ham Complaint, the
Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in
federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state
court. As with all of these related complaints, the Company has
filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner
for a judicial declaration and judgment that the Company did not
engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request
for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

In connection with the class action lawsuits, on June 21, 2009,
the Company filed a Petition for Access to Public Records against
the Commissioner. Since the inception of these class action
lawsuits, the Company has made numerous requests to the TDOS for
copies of any records that may have given rise to TDOS questioning
the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of
Tennessee. As a consequence of TDOS's failure to provide any such
information, the Company filed a petition against TDOS for
violation of Tennessee's Public Records Act. In response to the
Company's petition for access to public records, TDOS delivered
certain documents to the Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of
the class for all of the foregoing class action lawsuits as well
as the allegations made by the plaintiffs should the class be
certified. For the consolidated case described above, the issue of
class certification must first be resolved before the court will
address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of the
Company's defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. Based on its knowledge of
the facts and advice of outside counsel, management does not
believe the outcome of this litigation is likely to have a
material adverse effect on us; however, the final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Sheer" Suit in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against a
class action filed by Joseph Sheer, et al., over the Company's
misclassification of owner-operators as independent contractors,
according to the Company's March 29, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc.,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class involves owner-
operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-
operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, of FLSA and various New York and
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, 160 other current or former owner-operators
have joined this lawsuit. Upon the Company's motion, the matter
has been transferred from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the United States District Court
in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize
notice to the potential class members. On June 23, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who
are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On
September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to
compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's
request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff has
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the District
Court's order be vacated. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this
case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined
at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Still Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by John Burnell, on behalf of owner-operators
of Swift Transportation Company, remains stayed in a California
district court pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to the Company, according to the Company's March 29,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission of the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint. On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The putative
class includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four
years preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company
failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide
proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon
separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint is currently
subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar
issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which is
currently pending before the California Supreme Court. The Company
intends to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as
the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Suit Still Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by Michael Sanders against Swift
Transportation Company is still stayed in California pending
determinations of similar issues in other unrelated appellate
cases, according to the Company's March 29, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation and IEL: Michael Sanders
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case
No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint. The putative class involves
both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing
claims against Swift and IEL. Many of the claims alleged by both
the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of
employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer
Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell
Complaint as it relates to employee drivers. As alleged in the
Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-operators of
Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging
that Swift misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal FLSA and various
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the
owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. As alleged in
the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint
includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate
wage statement upon separation from employment, and failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Sanders
Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-
operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not
also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell
Complaint. These separate owner-operator claims allege that Swift
failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly
compensate for waiting times. The separate employee driver claims
allege that Swift failed to reimburse business expenses and
coerced driver employees to patronize the employer. The Sanders
Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but
not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which
is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint.
Upon the Company's motion, the Sanders Complaint has been
transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County
of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Sanders matter is currently subject to
a stay of proceedings pending determinations in other unrelated
appellate cases that seek to address similar issues.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of the Company's defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against certification of the class as
well as the merits of this matter should the class be certified.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of the settlement agreement in the
consolidated lawsuit against SWK Holdings Corporation remain
pending, according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2001, the Company, its underwriters, and certain officers
and directors were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit.  This case is one of several hundred similar cases
that have been consolidated into a single action.  The complaint
alleges misstatements and omissions concerning underwriters'
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  In February 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss
that would have disposed of the claims against the Company.  A
settlement proposal, which did not admit wrongdoing, had been
approved by the Board and preliminarily approved by the Court.
While the parties' request for court approval of the settlement
was pending, in December 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's finding that six focus cases could be certified
as class actions.  In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the
District Court might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26,
2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed
settlement as stipulated among the parties.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases, which was withdrawn on October 10, 2008.  On November 13,
2007 defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court denied
in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including the
Company), the underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers
for the defendants, engaged in mediation and settlement
negotiations.  They reached a settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier agreed to assume the Company's entire payment
obligation under the terms of the settlement.  On June 10, 2009,
the District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement agreement.  After a September 10, 2009 hearing, the
District Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 5,
2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit from the
District Court's order granting final approval of the settlement.
Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, there can be no guarantee that it will not
be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims.  If the settlement is not
implemented and the litigation continues against the Company, the
Company would continue to defend against this action vigorously.


TALBOTS INC: Defends Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc., is defending itself against a putative
securities class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, according
to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29,
2011.

On February 3, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. The Talbots, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
10186-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Talbots and certain of its officers. The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Talbots common stock from December 8, 2009 through and including
January 11, 2011, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Talbots, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain
false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain
material information. The complaint alleges that these actions
artificially inflated the market price of Talbots common stock
during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The
Company cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings or an
estimate of damages, if any. The Company believes that these
claims are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Hingham, Massachusetts-based The Talbots, Inc. (NYSE:TLB) is a
specialty retailer and direct marketer of women's apparel, shoes
and accessories.  At the end of third quarter 2009, the Company
operated 589 Talbots brand stores in 46 states, the District of
Columbia, and Canada.  Talbots brand on-line shopping site is
located at http://www.talbots.com/


TJX COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Against FLSA-Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and of state wage and hour statutes, according to the
Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29,
2011.

TJX is subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that rise
from time to time in the ordinary course of its business.  In
addition, TJX is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in federal
and state courts in California, New York and Texas brought as
putative class or collective actions on behalf of various groups
of current and former salaried and hourly associates in the U.S.:

   (1) Wage and Hour Class Actions: Halton-Hurt et al. v. The TJX
       Companies, Inc. d/b/a T.J. Maxx, U.S. District Court,
       Northern District of Texas, 3:09-CV-02171-N, November 13,
       2009; Ebo v. The TJX Companies, et al., Superior Court of
       CA, Los Angeles County Superior Court, BC380575, November
       13, 2007.

   (2) Exempt Status Cases: Ahmed v. T.J. Maxx Corp. et al., U.S.
       District Court, Eastern District of New York, 10-CV-03609,
       August 5, 2010; Archibald, et al. v. Marshalls of MA,
       Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
       New York, 09-CV-2323, March 12, 2009; Guillen v. Marshalls
       of MA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern
       District of New York, 09-CV-9575, November 18, 2009;
       Jenkins v. The TJX Companies, Inc. et al., U.S. District
       Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV-10 3753,
       August 16, 2010.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
of state wage and hour statutes, including alleged
misclassification of positions as exempt from overtime and alleged
entitlement to additional wages for alleged off-the-clock work by
hourly employees.  The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  TJX says it is vigorously
defending these claims.


TRANSMAGIC INC: Sued Over Surveillance Technology in Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that 3-D software developer Transmagic
secretly planted surveillance technology in its software that
"commandeered the computers of its customers, spied on them, and
used the ill-gotten intelligence to build a recurring revenue
stream exacted from an involuntary customer base."

The complaint states: "Defendants, waving the banner of software
anti-piracy, secretly planted 'phone home' code in Transmagic
software and used it to conduct surveillance on all Transmagic
users in an attempt to detect a few supposedly unauthorized users.
Defendants' purpose was not to deter unlicensed use but to profit
by treating suspected unlicensed users as 'leads' whom they would
'convert' into customers by shaking them down for steep license
premiums and ongoing maintenance fees."

Transmagic is based in Westminster, Colo.; co-defendant ITCA
Integrity Services and other ITCA entities are based in the
Netherlands and Cura‡ao; co-defendant Licensing Technologies
Limited is based in England.

Transmagic develops and sells three-dimensional, computer-assisted
design software (3D CAD) "designed to enable users of different
vendors' 3D CAD systems to share design files with each other,"
the complaint states.  It distributes the software, including free
trial versions, through its Web site, which requires users to
agree to an end-user license agreement (EULA).  Three-dimensional
software is particularly popular with engineers and designers, and
can be expensive.

"Transmagic has incorporated a 'Phone-Home Function' as part of
its product to trap those who download and attempt to use copies
of Transmagic software without agreeing to Transmagic's EULA and
to track the activities of all persons using Transmagic software,"
says lead plaintiff Miguel Pimentel.

The "phone-home" function is called Sheriff, and was designed,
sold and licensed by LTL.  Mr. Pimentel says the phone-home
function transmits' users' personally identifiable information to
Transmagic, including the users' Internet protocol address, the
media-access address of their computers, email addresses, and
Transmagic software activity.

If the data indicates unlicensed use of Transmagic software, the
defendants "catch the few supposedly unlicensed users and demand
fees from those persons," the complaint states.

Mr. Pimentel says he downloaded a free, 7-day trial copy of
Transmagic software from a Web site, didn't like it, and
uninstalled it the same day.

Three months later, he says, he got a phone call from ITCA: "ITCA,
while claiming to serve as a 'mediator,' used various coercive
techniques to induce plaintiff to agree to a large penalty for
'illegally downloading' software.  For example, ITCA told the
plaintiff that if he did not agree to purchase the product license
and service plan for $10,000 plus annually recurring maintenance
fees, Transmagic and ITCA would take legal action against him for
$150,000, an amount ITCA claimed it had successfully obtained in
prior actions.  Further, ITCA made clear it knew where plaintiff
worked and, as long as payment was made, ITCA would not disclose
the 'piracy' to his employer.

"Research conducted into such actions has not revealed the
existence of any such instances of recovery by Transmagic.

"ITCA waited three months to contact plaintiff to benefit from the
likelihood that he would not recall the details of his software
download and would not have retained relevant records on his
computer, and would thus be more likely to accept."

The class adds: "Plaintiffs do not contest Transmagic's right, in
principle, to implement technology to protect its intellectual
property.  In this case, however, defendants exceeded the
boundaries of permissible self-protection and violated consumers'
privacy and property rights by surreptitiously and
indiscriminately engaging in surveillance and information-
harvesting.

"Defendants invaded the privacy of all users of their software for
the sake of promoting their revenue-generating opportunity.
Without notice and without users' consent, defendants commandeered
the computers of its customers, spied on them, and used the ill-
gotten intelligence to build a recurring revenue stream exacted
from an involuntary customer base.  For their own enrichment,
defendants exploited users in violation of Massachusetts' Consumer
Protection Act and Privacy Act, the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, and common-law prohibitions against trespass to
chattels and conversion."

The class seeks damages, including statutory damages, restitution,
costs, and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Pimentel v. Transmagic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-10544 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/01/Transmagic.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam S. Elman, Esq.
          51 Winchester Street, Suite 205
          Newton, MA 02461
          E-mail: aselaw2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com
                  gparasmo@kamberlaw.com


ULTA SALON: Disburses Payments to Class Members Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetic & Fragrance, Inc., disbursed payments to
individual class members in February 2011 under its settlement of
a class action complaint alleging employee misclassification,
according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended January 29, 2011.

In July 2009, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state court
in California.  The suit alleges that Ulta misclassified its store
General Managers and Salon Managers as exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code.  The suit seeks to
recover damages and penalties as a result of the alleged
misclassification.  On August 27, 2009, the Company filed its
answer to the lawsuit, and on August 31, 2009, the Company moved
the action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, adding another named plaintiff.  On May 26,
2010, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in a voluntary mediation.
Although the Company continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in
the interest of putting the Salon Manager claims behind it, the
Company agreed in principle to settle all claims of the putative
Salon Manager class.  The settlement, which is not an admission of
liability, received Court approval on December 17, 2010 and
payments were disbursed to individual class members in February
2011.  Counsel for the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss without
prejudice the claims of the General Managers.  The settlement
amount is not material, the Company noted in its latest SEC
filing.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/--
is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United
States.


ULTA SALON: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Wage-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetic & Fragrance, Inc., has reached a tentative
settlement for the resolution of a class action complaint alleging
violations of California labor laws, according to the Company's
March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

In May 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state court
in California.  The plaintiff and members of the proposed class
are alleged to be (or have been) non-exempt hourly employees.  The
suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the
California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members
of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks,
certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay.  The suit
seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these
alleged practices.  On June 21, 2010, the Company filed its answer
to the lawsuit.  On January 12, 2011, the Company and plaintiffs
engaged in a voluntary mediation.  Although the Company continue
to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting
certain of the claims behind it, the Company agreed in principle
to settle all claims of the putative class consisting of non-
exempt hourly hair designers in the salon department within the
California retail stores.  The settlement, which is not an
admission of liability, is subject to final documentation and
Court approval.  Counsel for the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss
without prejudice the claims of all other putative class members.
The proposed settlement amount is not material, the Company noted
in its latest SEC filing.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/--
is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United
States.


UNITEK GLOBAL: Employees Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by a subsidiary of UniTek Global
Services, Inc., remains pending in a Tennessee court.

On February 15, 2008, plaintiffs, former employees of FTS USA,
LLC, a UniTek subsidiary, filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to
overtime payments. Conditional class certification was granted.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

UniTek Global Services is a provider of engineering, construction
management and installation fulfillment services to companies
specializing in the telecommunications, broadband cable, wireless
and satellite industries. UniTek has created a scalable operating
platform, enabling each UniTek subsidiary to deliver quality
services to its Fortune 200 customers. UniTek, based in Blue Bell,
PA, utilizes a diverse workforce of over 5,000 deployed in over
102 locations in the United States and Canada.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a
shareholders' class action accuses Urban Outfitters of hiding the
problems its namesake and Anthropologie stores were suffering in
the face of shifting fashion trends.

In his federal complaint, lead plaintiff Edward Koller III claims
CEO Glen Senk issued rosy statements in the final months of 2010,
knowing there were problems with the Philadelphia-based clothing
giant's inventory levels and supply chain.

In reality, though, sales were tanking, particularly for women's
apparel, and merchandise was being marked down, according to the
complaint.

Contrary to their public reassurances, "Defendants knew or had
reason to know: (1) that inventories were increasing materially
more than sales, (2) that sales at the company's namesake Urban
Outfitters store and Anthropologie division were materially
declining due to lack of customer demand, especially for women's
apparel, and (3) as a result, the company was forced to mark down
the price of inventory which materially adversely affected the
company's margins and financial results for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2011," the complaint states.

Urban Outfitters, CEO Senk and CFO Eric Artz are named as
defendants.

Mr. Koller claims that from Nov. 15, 2010 until March 7, 2011, the
defendants "engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course
of conduct that artificially inflated Urban Outfitter stock price
. . . by misrepresenting the company's operating condition and
future business prospects.  Defendants achieved this by making
positive statements about Urban Outfitters' business and
projecting strong earnings for the company while they knew that
the company was suffering."  Mr. Koller says the truth came out on
March 7, when Urban Outfitters disclosed financial results for the
quarter that ended Jan. 31.

"When defendants' prior misrepresentations were disclosed and
became apparent to the market, the price of Urban Outfitters stock
fell precipitously," the complaint states.  The company's share
price sank by 17% the next day, Mr. Koller says.

He says the timing and magnitude of the loss show that the price
plummet couldn't have been caused by "changed market conditions,
macroeconomic or industry factors, or company-specific facts
unrelated to the defendants' fraudulent conduct."

Mr. Koller declined to comment and referred questions to his
attorney, Howard Sedran, with Philadelphia-based Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman.

Messages left with the firm and with an Urban Outfitters media
contact were not immediately returned.

A copy of the Complaint in Koller v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02292 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/01/UrbanOutfit.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com
                  acohen@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend "Precision" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. continues to defend itself against a federal
antitrust class action lawsuit filed by Precision Associates Inc.,
et. al., in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended January 31, 2011.

UTi Worldwide Inc. has been named, along with seven other large
European and North American-based global logistics providers, as a
defendant in a federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed on
January 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern
District of New York (Precision Associates, Inc., et. al. v.
Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et. al.).  This lawsuit
alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-
competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

The Company says there can be no assurance that further lawsuits
by parties who have allegedly suffered injury in connection with
these allegations will not be filed in the future in the U.S. or
in other jurisdictions or that additional civil litigation will
not result from the pending or any future governmental
investigations, including but not limited to, shareholder class
action lawsuits.  There are uncertainties associated with any
litigation and the amount of time necessary to resolve these
current and potentially future lawsuits is uncertain, and these
matters could require significant management and financial
resources which could otherwise be devoted to the operation of the
Company's business.


VCG HOLDING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Family Dog Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the parties of a state court action and a federal court action,
both of which arose from its proposed merger with Family Dog, LLC,
according to the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, a complaint was filed in Colorado state court,
First Judicial District, Jefferson County District Court,
challenging the Going Private Transaction.  The complaint was
filed by David Cohen, Timothy Cunningham, Gene Harris, Dean R.
Jakubczak and William C. Steppacher, Jr. derivatively on behalf of
VCG and as a class action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated stockholders against Mr. Lowrie, Mr. Ocello,
Martin A. Grusin, Robert J. Mcgraw, Jr., Carolyn Romero, George
Sawicki, David Levine, Family Dog, FD Acquisition Co., Lowrie
Investment Management, Inc., Lowrie Management LLLP, and VCG (as a
nominal defendant).  The plaintiff's complaint has since been
amended twice.

The second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
January 15, 2011 and was accepted by the court as of January 24,
2011.  In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs challenge
the merger agreement that the Company entered into with Family
Dog, LLC and FD Acquisition Co., and the merger agreement's Going
Private Transaction, but the plaintiffs drop their derivative
claim and purport only to bring a class action on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated stockholders.  In the second
amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that: the Going Private Transaction consideration of $2.25 per
share payable to VCG's non-executive group stockholders upon the
closing of the Going Private Transaction, if at all, is
inadequate; the Company's Board member Troy Lowrie has a conflict
of interest with respect to the Going Private Transaction; the
individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under
Colorado law in connection with the Going Private Transaction; and
the proxy statement filed by VCG with the SEC on December 23, 2010
contains certain omissions and misleading statements.  The second
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
plaintiffs as class representatives, an injunction directing the
members of VCG's board of directors to comply with their fiduciary
duties and enjoining them from consummating the Going Private
Transaction, an accounting of alleged damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and the class, an award of the costs and disbursements
of maintaining the action including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, and such other relief the court deems just and
proper.

On January 28, 2011, VCG moved to stay the state court proceedings
pending the resolution of a parallel federal lawsuit on the
grounds that the two actions are substantially the same, arise out
of the same operative facts, seek the same relief, and trying both
actions would be a waste of both judicial and corporate resources.
The plaintiffs oppose the motion to stay.  On February 11, 2011,
the plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery.  The defendants
opposed the motion for expedited discovery.  The court denied the
motion to stay and denied the motion for expedited discovery.

On January 7, 2011, VCG was served with a complaint filed by
Andrew Doyle in federal court in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado.  In the complaint, the plaintiff
purports to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated against Mr. Lowrie, the Company's
Chairman and CEO, Micheal Ocello, Martin A. Grusin, Robert J.
McGraw, Jr., Carolyn Romero, George Sawicki, Kenton Sieckman,
David Levine, Family Dog, FD Acquisition Co., Lowrie Investment
Management, Inc., Lowrie Management LLLP, and VCG.  Like the
second amended state-law complaint, the federal complaint
challenges the Going Private Transaction.  The allegations in the
federal complaint and the relief sought are substantially the same
as those in the state action; in addition to the allegation set
forth in the second amended complaint, the federal complaint also
alleges violations of federal securities laws and regulations
based on the allegations in the state action related to the proxy
statement filed by VCG with the SEC on December 23, 2010.

On January 28, 2011, VCG filed its answer to the federal complaint
denying the material allegations therein and denying that the
plaintiff is entitled to judgment on any of his claims or any
relief whatsoever.  VCG's answer also asserts certain defenses.

On March 22, 2011, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the parties in and to the actions in the First
Judicial District, Jefferson County District Court captioned Cohen
v. Grusin, et. al., Case No. 2010CV3624, and in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Doyle v.
Lowrie, et. al., C.A. No. 11-CV-0037.  The MOU sets forth the
terms of the parties' agreement to settle and dismiss the State
Action and the Federal Action.  Pursuant to the MOU, among other
things, the parties agreed to these terms:

   * the termination fee payable by the Company to Family Dog, in
     the event that the Company terminates the Merger Agreement
     to enter into a Company Acquisition Agreement (as defined in
     the Merger Agreement) involving a Superior Acquisition
     Proposal (as defined in the Merger Agreement) from certain
     parties described in the Merger Agreement, will be reduced
     from $600,000 to $100,000;

   * the terms of the stipulation of settlement will include,
     among other things and subject to certain terms and
     conditions, a full, final, and complete release of any and
     all known and unknown claims, liabilities, or damages, that
     were brought or could have been brought in the State Action
     and the Federal Action, or that relate to the Merger
     Agreement and the merger, including filings with the SEC
     relating to the Merger Agreement and the merger;

   * the Company, or its successors, will pay any fees and
     expenses of the plaintiffs in such actions awarded by the
     court up to $67,500, following final approval from the state
     court and petition by the plaintiffs for an award of fees
     and expenses; and

   * the Federal Action will be dismissed with prejudice after
     certification of the class and approval of the stipulation
     of settlement in the State Court action.

The terms of the MOU are conditioned upon final approval by the
state court.


VCG HOLDING: Discovery Commences in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a class action lawsuit against VCG
Holding Corp. currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Maine, according to the Company's
March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, a complaint was filed against the Company in
the United States District Court for the District of Maine, in a
lawsuit captioned Johnson et al. v. VCG Holding Corp.  The Company
has not been formally served with the lawsuit, however, the
Company, via its attorneys, has agreed to accept service of the
complaint.

The complaint was filed by two former employees of one of the
Company's subsidiaries, Kenkev II, Inc. d/b/a PT's(R) Showclub
Portland, Maine who allege that the Company misclassified them as
tipped minimum wage employees while employed by the Company as
disk jockeys and, as a result, failed to pay all wages due to them
under applicable law.  The action is plead as a class action and
seeks to certify a class action on behalf of all similarly
situated employees who are employed by the Company nationwide.  In
addition, the two named plaintiffs allege that the Company failed
to pay them all wages required to be paid to them under Maine law.

The Company intends to deny all liability in this matter; however,
this matter is in its earliest stages and the Company's ultimate
liability cannot be predicted at this time.  Discovery has just
commenced and no evaluation can be made as the merits of this
claim.  As such, the Company says it has not accrued anything
related to this action.


WAL-MART STORES: Oral Argument Held in "Dukes" Case
---------------------------------------------------
An oral argument was held on March 29, 2011, in connection with
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to the United States Supreme Court
from the class certification order in "Dukes" case, according to
the Company's March 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31,
2011.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is involved in a number of legal
proceedings, which include consumer, employment, tort and other
litigation.  Certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to
the Company or settled by the Company, may result in liability
material to its results of operations, financial condition and
liquidity.  The Company is currently a defendant in numerous cases
containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs have
brought claims under federal and state wage and hour laws.  In
addition, the Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores and
wholesale clubs in the United States.  The class as certified in
Dukes currently includes present and former female associates.
The plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company has engaged in
a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in
promotions, pay, training and job assignments and seek, among
other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.  On June 4, 2004, the U.S. district
court hearing this case issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
which the Company has appealed.  On February 6, 2007, a divided
three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.  On February 20, 2007, the Company filed a
petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger
panel of the Court of Appeals.  On December 11, 2007, the three-
judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued
a revised opinion.  As a result, the Company's Petition for
Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.  The Company filed a new
Petition for Rehearing En Banc on January 8, 2008.  On
February 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.  On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a
divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain portions of the district
court's ruling and reversing other portions.  On August 25, 2010,
the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's
decision, which was granted by the United States Supreme Court on
December 6, 2010.  The Company filed its Brief for Petitioner on
January 20, 2011; the Brief for Respondents was filed on
February 22, 2011; and oral argument was held on March 29, 2011.


WET SEAL: Appeal From 2006 Wage Suit Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving the settlement in the class
action lawsuit filed against The Wet Seal Inc. in July 2006
remains pending, according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended January 29, 2011.

In July 2006, the Company was served with class action complaints
alleging violations under certain State of California labor laws.
In November 2006, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
July 2006 class action complaint for approximately $0.3 million,
and the Company has accrued within accrued liabilities in its
consolidated balance sheet an amount equal to this settlement
amount, awaiting final approval. On September 27, 2010, the
Superior Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement;
however, an appeal was subsequently filed on January 26, 2011.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Continues to Defend May 2007 & Sept. 2008 Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits filed separately in May 2007 and September 2008,
according to the Company's March 30, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 29, 2011.

In May 2007 and September 2008, the Company was served with class
action complaints alleging violations under certain State of
California labor laws.  On December 17, 2010, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in its entirety on the
May 2007 class action complaint and denied Plaintiffs' Motion For
Leave to File An Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs have appealed both
orders but have not yet filed their opening appellate briefs. The
Company is vigorously defending the May 2007 and September 2008
complaints and is unable to predict the likely outcomes and
whether such outcomes may have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations or financial condition. No provisions for
loss contingencies for the May 2007 and September 2008 complaints
have been accrued as of January 29, 2011.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


* Securities Fraud Class Actions v. Life Sciences Firms Up 53%
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for the Financial Post, reports that
securities fraud class actions against life sciences companies
rose 53% in 2010, according to the March 2011 Dechert Survey of
Securities Fraud Class Actions Brought Against Life Sciences
Companies.  The 29 new cases, compared with 19 in 2009 and 23 in
2008, amounted to 16% of the 176 securities fraud class action
lawsuits filed in the US. David Kotler, the Dechert partner who
co-authored the study, told the National Law Journal that he
expected such suits to rise even further in light of the US
Supreme Court's March 22 ruling in Matrixx Initiatives v.
Siracusano.  The court ruled that plaintiffs did not have to show
a correlation between a drug and adverse event reports to support
an inference of scienter.


                            *********

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  * * *