CAR_Public/110411.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 71

                             Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.1MM Remaining for Settlement
AMEXDRUG CORP: Illinois Court Dismisses Suit Against BioRx
AMITYVILLE, NY: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action
ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Overtime Pay
ARM'S REACH: Recalls 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Suit
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "D.W. Hugo" Suit
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Arizmendi" Suit
BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Class Suit
BNL FINANCIAL: Continues to Perform Settlement Obligations

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Suits
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Watchdog Wants Victims to Avoid Class Action
DVI INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Deloitte Class Certification Decision
EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Plaintiff Dismissed Class Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Madden Games

ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over JCI Merger
EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 750 Mowers Due to Crash Hazard
FIBRIA CELULOSE: CEO and Board Member Added to "Aracruz" Lawsuit
FXCM INC: Unit Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations
FXCM INC: Faces Class Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims

INFANTINO LLC: Recall 40,500 Toy Activity Trucks
INSWEB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Settlement Appeal
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Claims v. Edward Jones in "Luther" Suit Dismissed
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Class Suit

JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Covin" Suit in Arizona
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles With Plaintiffs in "Crocker" Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Unit Settles "Robertson" Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
KEY BABY: Recalls 29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Pacifiers

KID BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Custom Law Violations
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "FLSA" Class Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Property
MARUTI SUZUKI: Recalls 13,157 Diesel Cars Over Defective Bolt
MEDIFAST INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Maryland

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Conference Call Held to Discuss Mediation
NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeal From Class Certification Still Pending
OFFICE DEPOT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Fla.
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Settles "Nelson" Class Action Suit in Calif.
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Gleason" Case in Calif. Court

PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Beeney" Suit in Calif. Court
POLAND: Rybinski Mulls Class Action Over Pension Reform Bill
RICHARD GOLDSTONE: May Face Class Action Over Israel Opinion
ROYAL BANK: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Against N.Y. Shareholder Suit

ROYAL BANK: Faces Securitization and Securities-Related Lawsuits
SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to File 3rd Amended Suit
SEMTECH CORP: Hearing on Securities Suit Pact Set for April 11
SIGNATURE HOSPITAL: Responds to Employee Class Action
SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending

ST. LOUIS COMPOSTING: Valley Park Residents Mull Class Action
STATE STREET: New York Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action
STATION CASINOS: Won't Need to Distribute NPH Warrants
STEWART TITLE: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme
SUNL GROUP: CPSC Terminates ATV Action Plan

TORO COMPANY: Recalls 3,700 Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Dismissed
VANCOUVER: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Tuition Fee Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Sludge
WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court May Rule Against Class Action




                             *********

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.1MM Remaining for Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., estimates it
has $5.1 million remaining for a claims resolution process and
legal fees relating to the settlement of a class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks.  The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004, through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007, that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the
manufacturing process.

At December 31, 2010, the Company had a total remaining balance in
accrued expenses and accounts payable of $5.1 million associated
with the settlement of the class action lawsuit.  The estimate
included $4.6 million remaining for the claims resolution process
and $0.5 million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims.  In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million.  The estimate was revised
due to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received.  The deadline for submitting new claims has
now passed.

The claim resolution process will have an annual net cost
limitation to the Company of $2.0 million until the claim
resolution process is completed.

Based in Springdale, Arizona, Advanced Environmental Recycling
Tech. (NASDAQ:AERT) -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets composite building materials that are
used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior
applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain
other industrial or commercial building purposes.


AMEXDRUG CORP: Illinois Court Dismisses Suit Against BioRx
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed against BioRx Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., in Illinois was settled and dismissed in December 2010,
according to Amexdrug Corporation's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 26, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Glen Ellyn Pharmacy,
Inc. against the Company's subsidiary, BioRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and John Does 1-10 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division (Case No. 10CH46583).

The plaintiff intended to have the court approve the lawsuit as a
class action lawsuit.  The plaintiff alleged that BioRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sent or caused the sending of unsolicited
advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and the Common Law.  The plaintiff sought injunction relief, cost
of the lawsuit, and such further relief as the court deemed
proper.  The lawsuit was settled in December 2010, with the
Company paying $3,500.  The lawsuit has been dismissed.


AMITYVILLE, NY: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Amityville, N.Y., and the Amityville Fire
Department will pay $209,280 to settle a class age-discrimination
lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), the agency said in February.

The EEOC's suit alleged that Amityville refused to let volunteer
firefighters over age 65 accrue credit toward a "length of service
award," the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their
age.  As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after
they turned 65, in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act a federal law that protects workers age 40 and
older from age discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civ. No.
2:09-03742 ADS/AKT, after first attempting to reach a pre-
litigation settlement.

The consent decree filed in resolution of this suit permanently
eliminates an age restriction on service credit, mandates training
for individuals responsible for this program and institutes an
anti-discrimination policy. Further, retroactive payments will be
made to 23 volunteer firefighters who had been barred from
receiving credit for their service because of their age. The
settlement also provides for increased monthly pension amounts for
15 of those firefighters still living.

"The fire department's system penalized older firefighters because
of their age, and that was simply illegal," said Adela Santos, the
EEOC trial attorney assigned to the case.

EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Judy Keenan said, "We are pleased
that the parties worked together to resolve this matter so that
these brave firefighters, who risk their lives, will finally
receive appropriate compensation for their years of service."

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment
discrimination.


ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTS Software, Inc., continues to defend itself against an
employee lawsuit alleging unfair labor practices in California,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

On August 22, 2008, a former ANTS employee filed a class action
complaint against the Company on behalf of all current and former
software engineers for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to provide meal breaks, among other things, in Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo.  The former employee
is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees and penalties.
No trial date has yet been set.  On March 9, 2011, the Court
certified the class and a subclass consisting solely of former
engineering employees who signed release agreements, with another
former employee as the sub-class representative.  The Company
believes that the lawsuit is without merit.

ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the
Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets and supports
the ANTs Data Server ADS.  ACS is middleware that is intended to
offer a method to move applications from one database to another
and enable enterprises to achieve cost efficiencies by
consolidating their applications onto fewer databases.  The
Company had developed technologies used in the monitoring and
management of applications and databases related to ACS.


ARM'S REACH: Recalls 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arm's Reach Concepts Inc., of Oxnard, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

When the fabric liner is not used or is not securely attached,
infants can fall from the raised mattress into the loose fabric at
the bottom of the bed-side sleeper or can become entrapped between
the edge of the mattress and the side of the sleeper, posing risks
of suffocation.

CPSC and Arm's Reach have received 10 reports of infants falling
from the raised mattress into the bottom of the sleeper or
becoming entrapped between the edge of the mattress and the side
of the bed-side sleeper. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves a product called a "co-sleeper" by Arm's
Reach.  One side of the bed-side sleepers is lower than the others
to allow positioning near a bed and access to the infant for care
and feeding.  This recall includes all Arm's Reach Original and
Universal styles with manufacture dates between September 1997 and
December 2001.  The manufacture date and model number can be found
on a sticker on one of the product's legs.  Model numbers included
in the recall begin with:

    Originals     -     8108, 8133, 8111, 8112 & 8199
    Universal     -     8311

The recalled products are sold at Burlington Coat Factory, Babies
R Us and other retail stores nationwide from September 1997
through December 2001 for about $160.  The products are
manufactured in China.

A picture of the recalled product is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11187.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bed-side
sleepers and visit http://www.armsreach.com/instructionsto view
and download assembly instructions and to make sure that the
product is properly configured.  Consumers should also contact the
company by phone or via the company Web site to receive hard-copy
instructions by mail and an assembly/warning label.  Consumers who
are missing the fabric liner or other components should
immediately contact Arm's Reach for an alternative remedy.  For
additional information, contact Arm's Reach at (800) 954-9353
between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.armsreach.com/


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in the
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Joseph C. Hubbard,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On October 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and four of its current or former officers.
The Defendants in this action are BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,
James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo,
and Alan B. Levan. The Complaint, which was later amended, alleges
that during the purported class period of November 9, 2005 through
October 25, 2007, the Company and the named officers knowingly and
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses. The Complaint sought to assert claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2007, the Court
consolidated into Hubbard a separately filed action captioned
Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07--
cv-61623-WPD. On February 5, 2008, the Court appointed State-
Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP
to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per
share to shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Class
A Common Stock during the period of April 26, 2007 to October 26,
2007 and retained those shares until the end of the period. The
jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month period from
October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007. Prior to the beginning of the
trial, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any prior period. The
Company has filed motions to set aside the verdict, which are
fully briefed, and the judge has indicated that if those are
denied she will certify issues to the United States Court of
Appeals to the Eleventh Circuit before any judgment is entered or
claims are satisfied.

The Company intends to vigorously prosecute post-trial motions and
an appeal, and then subsequently assert all meritorious available
defenses in any claims process.

                     About BankAtlantic Bancorp

BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) --
http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company
and the parent company of BankAtlantic.  BankAtlantic --
"Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at
http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets
and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial
institutions headquartered junior in Florida.  BankAtlantic has
been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and
currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "D.W. Hugo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in the
class action lawsuit brought by D.W. Hugo, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 2, 2008, D.W. Hugo filed a purported class action which
was brought as a derivative action on behalf of the Company
pursuant to Florida laws in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain
officers and directors. The Complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in certain
lending practices with respect to the Company's Commercial Real
Estate Loan Portfolio. The Complaint further alleges that the
Company's public filings and statements did not fully disclose the
risks associated with the Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio
and seeks damages on behalf of the Company. This shareholder
derivative action is based on the same factual allegations made in
In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation and has
been stayed pending final resolution of that case. The Company
believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously
defend this action.

                     About BankAtlantic Bancorp

BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) --
http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company
and the parent company of BankAtlantic.  BankAtlantic --
"Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at
http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets
and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial
institutions headquartered junior in Florida.  BankAtlantic has
been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and
currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Arizmendi" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action captioned Jordan Arizmendi, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BankAtlantic, Case No. 09-059341 (19), Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 8, 2010, two pending class action cases against
BankAtlantic -- Farrington v. BankAtlantic, and Rothman v.
BankAtlantic -- were consolidated, and a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed. New purported named plaintiffs
were added, and the case is now styled as Jordan Arizmendi, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BankAtlantic. The Complaint, which asserts claims for breach of
contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
alleges that the Bank improperly re-sequenced debit card
transactions, improperly assessed overdraft fees on positive
balances, and improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees on
customers one day sooner than provided for under the applicable
account agreement.

                     About BankAtlantic Bancorp

BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) --
http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company
and the parent company of BankAtlantic.  BankAtlantic --
"Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at
http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets
and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial
institutions headquartered junior in Florida.  BankAtlantic has
been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and
currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs.


BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Corporation continues to await a court ruling of the
class certification request pending in the lawsuit, Paul A.
Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation.

The complaint was filed on September 18, 2008, under Cause No.
2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division.  The plaintiffs
brought suit alleging fraud and misrepresentation with regards to
the construction of a marina at the Sanctuary Cove subdivision
located in Camden County, Georgia.  The plaintiffs subsequently
withdrew the fraud and misrepresentation counts and filed a count
alleging violation of racketeering laws, including mail fraud and
wire fraud.  On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of more than 100 persons claimed to have been
harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner.  Bluegreen
has filed a response with the Court in opposition to class
certification.  No decision has yet been made by the Court as to
whether they will certify a class.

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

The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

Bluegreen Corporation -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a
provider of places to live and play through its resorts and
residential community businesses.  The company is organized into
two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen Communities.
Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets vacation
ownership interests (VOIs) in resorts located in drive-to
vacation destinations and provides various services to third-
party resort owners.  Bluegreen Communities acquires, develops
and subdivides property and markets residential land homesites,
which are sold directly to retail customers who seek to build a
home in a residential setting, in some cases on properties
featuring a golf course and related amenities, and also offers
real estate consulting and other services to third parties.  It
also generates income from its resort management business and
through interest income earned from the financing of individual
purchasers of VOIs, and homesites sold by Bluegreen Communities.


BNL FINANCIAL: Continues to Perform Settlement Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------
BNL Financial Corporation continues to perform its obligations
under a settlement agreement in the class action case brought by
certain shareholders against it, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2001, the Board of Directors of BNL Financial Corporation and
BNL Equity Corporation approved a settlement in the class action
case brought by certain shareholders.  The settlement, which was
approved by the Pulaski County Circuit Court and the Arkansas
Insurance Commissioner, was subject to various conditions,
including the approvals by any other applicable regulatory
authorities and conditioned upon compliance with federal and state
securities laws.  As of December 31, 2002, all requisite approvals
were received and redemption of the stock began in 2003.

As part of the settlement agreement, the Company issued its Bonds
in the principal amount of $1.50 in exchange for each share of
common stock of BNL owned by the members of the Class.  The
balance of Bonds Payable was $1,300,708 and $1,323,388 at December
31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  The bonds are for a term of
twelve years, effective December 15, 2002, with principal payable
at maturity and bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable
annually from the previous fiscal year's earnings of BNL.  The
estimated annual impact to earnings per share is approximately
$.005 per share.  If any interest payment is not made, it will be
added to the principal and paid at maturity.  The Bonds are fully
callable and redeemable at par at any time by BNL.

The Company has made cash offers to bond holders for the purchase
of bonds.  Bond purchases resulted in a reduction of Bonds Payable
of $22,680, and $119,894 in 2010 and 2009; respectively.  Gains
from early extinguishments of the debt were $4,536, $27,176 and
$44,370 in 2010, 2009 and 2008; respectively.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
antitrust lawsuits filed against it and other domestic egg
producers, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in twenty-four antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In sixteen of these cases, the
named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of others who claim to be similarly situated.  In fourteen of
those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that
they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and
egg products directly from one or more of the defendants.  In the
other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are
individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs
and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants --
that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties.  In the remaining
eight cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and
are not seeking to certify a class.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania court has organized
the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers
and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for
the named plaintiffs in each group.

Six of the eight non-class suits were filed in the same court that
is presiding over the putative class actions.  One of these cases
was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff.
Another of these cases was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but the defendants
have transferred it to the Eastern District, and it has been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the other cases. The
remaining non-class suit was filed in the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas but has been removed to the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants have
requested that it be transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and consolidated with the Multidistrict Litigation
proceedings in that court. The plaintiffs in this action are
seeking to remand the case back to the District Court of Wyandotte
County, Kansas.

             Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant.
The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held,
but the court has not yet ruled.  If it is approved, the
settlement would not require the settling party to pay any money.
Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability,
would provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness
interviews to the plaintiffs' attorneys.  After announcing this
potential settlement with one defendant, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2009.  On
February 5, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in
moving to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for
damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period and
claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products
sector.  The court heard oral argument on these motions but has
not yet ruled.  On February 26, 2010, the Company filed its answer
and affirmative defenses to the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  On June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with a second
defendant.  The final hearing on approval of this settlement has
also been held, but the court has not ruled.  If this settlement
is approved, then the defendant would pay a total of $25 million
and would provide other consideration in the form of documents,
witness interviews, and declarations.  This settling defendant
denied all liability in its potential agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.

            Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010.  On May 7,
2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages
outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims
arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector,
claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer frauds
statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment.  The court
heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled.  On
June 4, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint.

                         Non-Class Cases

The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were
filed between November 16, 2010 and January 25, 2011.  The Company
has not yet answered or moved to dismiss any of these cases.

                    Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing
industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of
hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States.  Both
groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a
class period starting on January 1, 2000, and running "through the
present."  The direct purchaser putative class action case alleges
two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell
eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The direct
purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class action case
seeks relief under the Sherman Act and the statutes and common-law
of various states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

In six of the non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.  In one of the non-class
cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the
Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine
Act).  In the remaining non-class case, the plaintiffs seek
damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas Restraint of Trade
Act.

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders in the
putative class actions related to case management and scheduling.
There is no definite schedule in either putative class action case
for discovery, class certification proceedings, or filing motions
for summary judgment.  No trial date has been set in either
putative class action case.  The non-class cases were filed so
recently that the court has not set any schedule for them.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend these cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Watchdog Wants Victims to Avoid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Drug Watchdog says, "When it comes to the recalled ASR
DePuy hip implant, we are warning all recipients of this
artificial hip to avoid national class actions, or what they call
a MDL.  We fear recalled ASR DePuy victims will be treated like a
commodity in a class action, as opposed an individual, who has
been horribly damaged."  They are saying, "If you are already
signed up with a law firm related to the ASR DePuy recalled
artificial hip implant tragedy, please call your attorney, and ask
if your case is going to be part of a national class action, or if
they will prosecute your case individually in state court? If the
law firm says class action, call us immediately, and we will find
you or your loved one the best possible law firm, that will
prosecute your case, in state court.  Nothing is more important to
us than trying to get recalled ASR DePuy hip implant victims some
help, and we are dedicated to the idea of getting victims of the
recalled ASR DePuy hip implant the best possible results."  The US
Drug Watchdog now wants to hear from all recipients of a recalled
ASR DePuy hip implant to make certain they get treated in the best
possible way.  For more information about the DePuy hip implant
recall please call the US Drug Watchdog at 866-714-6466, or
contact the group via its Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.Com

According to the US Drug Watchdog, "Symptoms of the recalled ASR
DePuy hip implant possible failure include, pain in the hip
region, problem while walking or the inability to walk, swelling
of the hip, discomfort in the hip area, and lack of flexibility in
the hip area.

The US Drug Watchdog is the premier private pharmaceutical
watchdog in the United States.  The group says, "tragically the
Internet is loaded with misleading ads about ASR DePuy hip implant
compensation, lawsuits, or class actions; unfortunately most of
the attorneys, or law firms advertising for help with the ASR
DePuy hip implant failures are middlemen marketing law firms-not
the actual trial law firms that will prosecute these cases."  They
say, "we want to make certain all ASR DePuy hip implant victims
get to the actual trial law firms, or attorneys, that have the
best record in achieving superior results for their clients-
period-no middleman marketing law firms, or attorneys."  For more
information please contact the US Drug Watchdog anytime at 866-
714-6466, or contact the group via its web site at
http://USDrugWatchdog.Com

Federal Case Number MDL No. 2197


DVI INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Deloitte Class Certification Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krislov & Associates, Ltd. on April 6 disclosed that it achieved a
significant, wide-ranging securities fraud decision from the U.S.
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit that is highly favorable to
investors, especially institutional investors, upholding a
district court's class certification decision against DVI's
auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP.

In In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig. -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 1125926 (3d
Cir. Mar. 29, 2011), the court's 58-page opinion, addressing many
of the major current issues in securities class action litigation,
rejected numerous challenges to the district court's certification
of a class of equity and debt investors, and the adequacy of
institutional investors, lead plaintiffs Cedar Street Funds, to
represent them.  First, the Third Circuit rejected requiring
investors to prove loss causation at the class certification stage
and declared that plaintiffs need only show that loss causation is
susceptible to class-wide proof, and noted that, in "typical"
cases, as was the case here -- where plaintiffs allege that
fraudulent misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of
the security -- it is presumed that damages and loss causation are
susceptible of determination through evidence common to the class.

The court also rejected Deloitte's challenge to the fraud-on-the
market presumption and its assertion that DVI's common stock and
senior notes did not trade in efficient markets.  The Third
Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the District Court in
crediting Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Michael Hartzmark of Navigant
Economics, over defendants' experts, in finding market efficiency
present for both DVI's common stock and two senior note tranches.

Additionally, in another issue important to institutional
investors, the Third Circuit rejected Deloitte's challenges to
institutional investor trading strategies and personally
contacting company personnel to investigate the bona fides of the
issuer's releases, finding Plaintiffs' access to DVI insiders a
common practice of institutional investors and acceptable, and
investor's subjective belief that a security is incorrectly priced
not grounds to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption for
investors' class-wide reliance on the market price.

In another aspect of the case, the court upheld the lower court's
denial of class certification to pursue claims against the
Clifford Chance law firm; in the court's view investors cannot
assert class securities claims against "non-signing" attorneys who
allegedly created, crafted and choreographed a "workaround" that
caused the company to omit disclosures in their SEC filings.

Clint Krislov, lead attorney for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class,
stated, "the Third Circuit's ruling against the accountants is a
substantial victory for institutional investors, protecting them
from baseless attacks on honest investigation by diligent
investment funds which base their investment decisions on their
independent evaluation of markets and pricing.  With respect to
the ruling on Clifford Chance, we will consider all our options,
including whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court."

Michael Karnuth, another primary attorney for Lead Plaintiffs and
the Class, stated, "the Third Circuit's decision is a victory for
investors on several fronts.  The decision allows investors to
bring class cases to redress fraud rather than be dismissed on
buyer beware principles based on nebulous and hyper-technical
market efficiency challenges, or premature and unduly burdensome
loss causation objections."  Mike Karnuth further stated, "we're
also very pleased that the District Court and the Third Circuit
agreed that our client's trading strategies and access to
management were proper.  This ruling not only vindicates our
clients, but also allows institutional investors with similar
common trading strategies to pursue appointment as lead plaintiffs
without the threat of retribution."

Class Counsel involved in argument to the Third Circuit were Clint
Krislov and Michael Karnuth, who were assisted on the briefs by
Robert DeWitte and Eve-Lynn Rapp, all of Krislov & Associates,
Ltd., with further assistance provided by Liaison Counsel Steve
Schwartz and Kimberly Donaldson-Smith of Chimicles & Tikellis,
LLP.

CONTACT: Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
         Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350
         20 North Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: 312-606-0500
         E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/


EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Plaintiff Dismissed Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff of a putative class action lawsuit commenced against
Eksportfinans ASA was dismissed in September 2010, without
prejudice, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit was commenced in July 2010 against
Eksportfinans relating to certain securities sold pursuant to the
US MTN program seeking unspecified damages and attorney's fees.
Eksportfinans received notice from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dated September 21,
2010, that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) the
Plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Madden Games
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Schreier, writing for Wired.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed on April 6 claims Electronic Arts has violated
antitrust laws with its Madden football game series.

A class-action lawsuit alleges that videogame publisher Electronic
Arts has violated California antitrust and consumer-protection
laws by overcharging for its popular Madden football games.

Law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is filing the suit, which
claims EA's exclusive licenses with the National Football League
and other sports organizations hurts consumers.  The license
ensures that only Madden can use NFL team names and players.
Since football gamers are by and large looking to replicate the
NFL experience, this makes it extremely difficult for other
football games to challenge EA.

The lawsuit also targets EA's deals with the National Football
League Players' Association, the National Collegiate Athletics
Association and the Arena Football League.

Some gamers reported receiving an e-mail about the lawsuit
Wednesday morning.  Anyone who has "purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA
Football or Arena Football League brand videogames published by
Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005, to the
present" is considered a member of the class and is consequently
eligible for any compensation if the lawsuit succeeds.

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, who holds two
law degrees, cast heavy doubt on the legal action's chances for
success.

"I think that the suit is idiotic, and would bet it's dismissed,"
he said in an e-mail to Wired.com.

Exclusive intellectual-property licenses are commonplace across
the games industry, Mr. Pachter noted.  "Marvel doesn't license
Spider-Man to multiple movie studios or game companies, and they
don't have to," he said, adding that consumers are not being
overcharged since new Madden games are sold at the same suggested
retail price as sports games that are not licensed exclusively.
The original list prices for EA's exclusive Madden NFL 11 and
Take-Two's nonexclusive NBA 2K11 were both $60.

"If Madden pricing went up to $70 or $80, I could see some merit
in the argument," Mr. Pachter said.  "But Madden launches at the
same price point as every other game made by EA, so proving that
the class of plaintiffs was harmed by the NFL exclusive will be
almost impossible."

Electronic Arts negotiated an exclusive deal with the NFL in late
2004.  That was the last year that a variety of different NFL-
licensed football games appeared on shelves.  2K Sports' ESPN NFL
2K5 was rated as highly as that year's Madden, posing a real
threat to EA's decades-long dominance of the football genre.
Moreover, 2K sold its game at a mere $20.  The exclusivity deal
shut that down abruptly.

"EA's move to get an exclusive was predatory against Take-Two, but
not aimed at hurting consumers," said Mr. Pachter, who called EA's
deal with the NFL perfectly legal.  "Take-Two cut price to an
unsustainable level for a year to capture share, and EA
responded."

Back when the deal was struck, Mr. Pachter was more pessimistic
about its effect on consumers.  "It was flat out predatory
licensing," he told CNN in 2004. "[EA is] trying to put other
people out of business.  No matter what, the consumer has fewer
choices and no matter what, they're paying more.  There is no $20
option.  It goes to $50 next year and stays there.  I think
consumers lose."

As of press time, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro had not responded to
Wired.com's requests for comment.  Electronic Arts refused to
comment on the lawsuit, which states that Defendant the company
"has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct."


ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over JCI Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
EnergyConnect Group Inc. is facing a consolidated class action
lawsuit, which stemmed from its proposed merger with Johnson
Controls Holding Company Inc., according to the Company's April 1,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011.

EnergyConnect, its board of directors, JCI Holding and Eureka,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of JCI Holding, are named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by
alleged shareholders challenging EnergyConnect's proposed merger
with JCI Holding.

The shareholder actions generally allege, among other things, that
each member of the EnergyConnect board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to EnergyConnect shareholders by authorizing the
sale of EnergyConnect to JCI Holding for consideration that does
not maximize value to EnergyConnect shareholders.  The complaints
also allege that EnergyConnect, JCI Holding and Eureka, Inc. aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by
the members of the EnergyConnect board of directors.  The
shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including enjoining the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
On March 28, 2011, the court entered an order consolidating the
three cases into one matter.


EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 750 Mowers Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Exmark Manufacturing Company, of Beatrice, Neb., voluntarily
recalled about 750 Exmark Pioneer S-Series riding mowers in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Welds on the motion control linkage can fail and cause the driver
to lose control of the machine, resulting in a crash hazard.
Exmark has had no reports of incidents or injuries.

2011 Exmark Pioneer S-Series zero radius turn riding mowers with
red, welded, tubular steel frames and mowing decks in three sizes
-- 44, 48 and 52 inches. Operators use two levers to control the
mowers.  The name Exmark is on the front of the seat mount and the
name Pioneer is on the front of the floor pan.  Pictures of
recalled mower showing the location of model number and serial
number data plate are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11730.html

Mowers with the following model and serial number ranges are
affected by this recall:

          Model             Serial Number Range
          -----             -------------------
          PNS20KA443          928367 to 947833
          PNS22KA483          928417 to 949985
          PNS24KA523          928492 to 950315

The model name and serial numbers are located on the seat mount
near where the driver's right foot rests on the floorpan.

The mowers were manufactured in the United States and sold at
Exmark dealers nationwide from February 11, 2011 to March 10, 2011
for $6,881 to $7,658.

Consumers should contact their Exmark dealer to have the
improperly welded parts replaced.  For additional information,
contact Exmark at 800-667-5296, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.exmark.com/


FIBRIA CELULOSE: CEO and Board Member Added to "Aracruz" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fibria Celulose S.A.'s chief executive officer and former member
of the board were added to a class action lawsuit, according to
the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company is currently a defendant in litigation relating to
derivative losses Aracruz incurred in the fourth quarter of 2008.
This litigation includes a securities class action lawsuit filed
in November 2008 against Aracruz and certain of its officers and
directors in a U.S. federal court purportedly on behalf of persons
who purchased Aracruz's shares and American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) between April 7 and October 2, 2008, which lawsuit the
Company is currently defending.  During the first quarter of 2011,
Mr. Carlos Augusto Lira Aguiar (currently Fibria's CEO) and Mr.
Carlos Alberto Vieira (formerly a member of the Company's Board of
Directors) were officially served with process in Brazil naming
them as additional defendants in the class action.  The complaint
asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the Company
misrepresented or failed to disclose information in connection
with, and losses arising from, certain derivative transactions
into which the Company had entered.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and expense reimbursement.  On
October 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
narrowed the class of plaintiffs to persons who purchased
Aracruz's ADRs between April 7 and October 2, 2008.


FXCM INC: Unit Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Forex Capital Markets LLC is facing a purported class action
lawsuit alleging false and deceptive trade practices, among other
things, according to FXCM Inc.'s March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On February 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by a single former customer against Forex Capital Markets
LLC.  The complaint asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C Section 1961 et seq., as
well as the New York General Business Law.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, trebled, and alleges false and
deceptive trade practices, fraudulent and unfair trade execution
and account handling practices.

The Company says that it is unable to predict the final outcome of
the lawsuit, but it firmly believes that the allegations from the
lawsuit are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
itself.  The Company adds that any potential liability from these
claims cannot currently be reasonably estimated, and no provision
has been accrued in its financial statements.


FXCM INC: Faces Class Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
------------------------------------------------------
FXCM Inc. is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging
false or misleading statements in its initial public offering
prospectus, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 3, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against FXCM Inc., as well as certain of its officers and
directors and three underwriters in its initial public offering.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleges false or misleading statements in the IPO
prospectus regarding the Company's business model and trading
platforms, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's Class A common stock in the
IPO.

The Company says that it is unable to predict the final outcome of
the lawsuit, but it firmly believes that the allegations from the
lawsuit are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
itself.  The Company adds that any potential liability from these
claims cannot currently be reasonably estimated, and no provision
has been accrued in its financial statements.


INFANTINO LLC: Recall 40,500 Toy Activity Trucks
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 40,500 Troy the Activity Truck in the
United States and 1,900 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic beads on the activity truck's bead runs can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  Infantino has received
28 reports of the plastic beads detaching from the bead runs on
the activity trucks, including two reports of young children
gagging on the plastic beads.

The recall involves "Troy the Activity Truck," which is blue, red
and yellow with plastic star, circle and heart beads attached to
the bead runs on the back of the truck and has a face on the
front. "Infantino" is printed on the front of the toy truck.
Model number 153-210, 206-110 or 506-110C is printed underneath
the truck. When its switch is turned on, the truck plays music and
the back wheels spin.  A picture of the recalled toy activity
truck is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11186.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies R Us, Toys R Us, Meijer, TJ Maxx, Marshalls and other toy
stores nationwide from September 2009 through February 2011 for
about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and contact Infantino to receive a free replacement toy.
For additional information, contact Infantino toll-free at (888)
808-3111 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://service.infantino.com


INSWEB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Settlement Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insweb Corporation is awaiting a ruling on an appeal made by
certain plaintiffs regarding a court-approved settlement in a
securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
April 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The complaint named as defendants InsWeb, certain current
and former officers and directors, and three investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for InsWeb's initial public
offering in July 1999.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offering failed to disclose, among
other things, that (i) the underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the
offerings and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated shares
of the stock sold in the offering to those customers in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
InsWeb stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No
specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims
against the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in
the InsWeb action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the
remaining claims.  In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the
cases presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer
defendants.  Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would
dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all
the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.  InsWeb and most of the other issuer
defendants have accepted the settlement proposal.  While the
District Court was considering final approval of the settlement,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in
six cases designated as focus or test cases.  On December 14,
2006, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all
of the lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the
Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court.  Because of the significant technical barriers
presented by the Court's decision, the parties withdrew the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Representatives of all of the parties to the IPO litigation agreed
to a revised settlement; as with the earlier settlement proposal,
the revised settlement proposal does not require InsWeb to
contribute any cash.  The revised settlement was approved by the
District Court on October 5, 2009, but a number of plaintiffs
appealed the approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
There is no assurance that the new settlement will be upheld on
appeal.  If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.  The litigation and settlement process is
inherently uncertain and management cannot predict the outcome,
though, if unfavorable, it could have a material adverse effect on
InsWeb's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in relation to the
Company's merger with a company formerly known as International
Textile Group, Inc., in 2006, according to the Company's March 31,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Three substantially identical lawsuits have been filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South
Carolina related to the merger of the Company and a company
formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc., in late 2006.
The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second and third
lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney. These three
lawsuits were consolidated in 2010. The actions name as
defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers
and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the time of the
Merger. The plaintiffs raise derivative and direct (class action)
claims and contend that certain of the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. The plaintiffs
also make certain related claims against certain of the
defendants' former advisors. While the Company is a nominal
defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims, the
Company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief being
made against it. However, the Company has certain obligations to
provide indemnification to its officers and directors (and certain
former officers and directors) against certain claims and believes
the lawsuits are being defended vigorously. Certain fees and costs
related to this litigation are to be paid or reimbursed under the
Company's insurance programs. Because of the uncertainties
associated with the litigation, management cannot estimate the
impact of the ultimate resolution of the litigation. It is the
opinion of the Company's management that any failure by the
Company's insurance providers to provide any required insurance
coverage could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

International Textile Group, Inc., is a global, diversified
textile manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina,
with current operations principally in the United States, China,
Mexico, and Vietnam.  ITG's long-term focus includes the
realization of the benefits of its global expansion, including
reaching full production at ITG facilities in China and Vietnam,
and continuing to seek other strategic growth opportunities.


JONES FINANCIAL: Claims v. Edward Jones in "Luther" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims against Edward D. Jones Co., L.P, the principal operating
subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., in a
consolidated securities class action involving Countrywide
Corporation were dismissed in November, Jones Financial disclosed
in its March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Three matters (David H. Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al; Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting
Pension Trust, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et
al.; and Maine State Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al.) were filed in 2007, 2008, and 2010
respectively in California state court.  In these matters,
plaintiffs allege against numerous issuers and underwriters,
including Edward Jones, certain violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, in connection with registration statements
and prospectus supplements issued between January 2005 and June
2007 for certain mortgage-backed certificates.  Luther and
Washington State Plumbing were consolidated in October 2008.  In
January 2010, the court in Luther granted the defendants' demurrer
and dismissed the matter.  In March 2010, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal.  In January 2010, plaintiffs filed the Maine State
Retirement System case in federal court.  Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 13, 2010.  On
November 4, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing
plaintiff's claims to the extent they related to any certificates
for which Edward Jones acted as dealer.  In both matters, the
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses and rescission.  On November 17, 2010, a fourth
matter was filed in California state court, Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation,
et al., re-asserting the claims dismissed by the Court in the
Maine State Retirement case.  That case has been stayed by
agreement of the parties, pending the outcome of the Luther
appeal.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri.
The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was
established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the
organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. --
http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal
operating subsidiary.  Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28,
1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P.  The Partnership's principal operating
subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily
serving individual investors.  As the ultimate parent company of
Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct
operations.  Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the
retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted
securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal
transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and
revenue related to assets held by and account services provided
to its customers.  Edward Jones conducts business in the United
States of America and Canada, with its customers, various
brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic
operating segments, the U.S. and Canada.


JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s principal operating
subsidiary, Edward D. Jones Co., L.P, continues to defend itself
in the class action complaint related to the issuance of Lehman
Brothers bonds.

In October 2008, a class action suit was filed in Arkansas state
court, Saline County, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 Act, against certain officers and directors
of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and a syndicate of
underwriters, including Edward Jones, of Lehman bonds sold
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus dated
May 30, 2006, and various prospectus supplements dated October 22,
2006, and thereafter.  In November 2008, a similar suit was filed
in Arkansas state court, Benton County against the same defendants
stemming from the sale of 6.5% Lehman Bonds maturing October 25,
2007, pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus and
prospectus supplement dated August 2, 2007.  Plaintiffs in both
actions allege the defendants made material misrepresentations to
the purchasers of Lehman Bonds.  While each lawsuit relates to a
different series of Lehman bonds, the plaintiffs in each suit seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.  In February 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred these two actions to the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with similar actions currently pending in the
SDNY.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Securities
Act Claims in April 2009, which is currently pending in the SDNY.
In April 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Statement of
Claim.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint in July 2010, which is currently pending.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri.
The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was
established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the
organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. --
http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal
operating subsidiary.  Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28,
1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P.  The Partnership's principal operating
subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily
serving individual investors.  As the ultimate parent company of
Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct
operations.  Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the
retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted
securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal
transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and
revenue related to assets held by and account services provided
to its customers.  Edward Jones conducts business in the United
States of America and Canada, with its customers, various
brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic
operating segments, the U.S. and Canada.


JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Covin" Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Jones Co., L.P., continues to defend its involvement in
a putative class action, In re Covin, et al., in relation to bonds
underwritten for the purpose of financing construction
of an event center in Prescott Valley, Arizona.

Edward Jones is the principal operating subsidiary of The Jones
Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.

In September 2009, three lawsuits were filed in Arizona.  The
actions relate to bonds underwritten by Edward Jones and other
brokerage firms for the purpose of financing construction of an
event center in Prescott Valley, Arizona.  Edward Jones sold
approximately $2.9 million of the bonds.  The plaintiffs allege
the underwriters, including Edward Jones, made material
misrepresentations and omissions in the Preliminary Official
Statement and/or in the Official Statement.  The Covin, et al
matter, was filed as a putative class action in which the
plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the issued bonds.
Allstate is suing as a purchaser of the bonds and Wells Fargo
filed a separate action as Trustee on behalf of all bond holders.
The Court entered an order in November 2009, dismissing several of
the claims against Edward Jones including, all claims brought on
behalf of the class.  The remaining claims against Edward Jones
stem from allegations that defendants violated certain state
securities acts and committed common law torts.  Plaintiffs are
seeking an unspecified amount of damages including attorneys'
fees, costs, expense, rescission or statutory damages, out-of-
pocket damages and prejudgment interest.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri.
The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was
established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the
organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. --
http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal
operating subsidiary.  Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28,
1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P.  The Partnership's principal operating
subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily
serving individual investors.  As the ultimate parent company of
Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct
operations.  Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the
retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted
securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal
transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and
revenue related to assets held by and account services provided
to its customers.  Edward Jones conducts business in the United
States of America and Canada, with its customers, various
brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic
operating segments, the U.S. and Canada.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles With Plaintiffs in "Crocker" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs of the consolidated class action lawsuit filed
against the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duties to
participants in its 401(k) plan, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On February 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative
class-action complaint against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.  The Crocker case
was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the
Eastern District of Missouri (Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et
al., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, on February 9, 2009, and Knoll v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, on February 24,
2009).  The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that
only a single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009.

The Complaint purports to state claims against the Company and
certain current and former employees for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan.
Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 25,
2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on October 19,
2009.  The court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all
individual defendants on March 24, 2010.  A motion to alter or
amend the judgment and second amended consolidated complaint was
filed on April 21, 2010.  The Company, on May 17, 2010, filed a
Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend
the judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated complaint.
On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter
or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs requested mediation and the Company agreed to this
request.  On February 15, 2011, during such mediation, this
litigation was settled by an agreement in principle of the parties
for an amount equal to $3,000,000 payable in full from the
Company's insurance coverage.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Unit Settles "Robertson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company's subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corporation, has
reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs of a lawsuit
pending in Alabama, according to the Company's March 31, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

The lawsuit Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corporation, U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama, Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-01010-
MHT-TFM, was filed on October 30, 2009, by a Ther-Rx sales
representative asserting non-exempt status and the right to
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for a class of
Ther-Rx sales representatives and under the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 (with respect to plaintiff's pregnancy) and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (also with respect to
termination allegedly due to her pregnancy and to her complaints
about being terminated allegedly as a result of her pregnancy).
An additional seven Ther-Rx sales representatives have joined as
plaintiffs.  Class certification arguments are pending before the
court.  On December 22, 2010, a settlement in principle was
reached between the parties.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against
numerous product liability or other lawsuits that relate to the
voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late 2008
and early 2009, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and/or ETHEX Corporation are named defendants in at
least 43 pending product liability or other lawsuits that relate
to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late
2008 and early 2009.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege
damages as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized
tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are
pending in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions.  The
43 pending lawsuits include 9 that have settled but have not yet
been dismissed.  In the 43 pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege
economic harm, 29 plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, and the
plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical
injuries.  Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on
various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict
liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding,
fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims.  Plaintiffs
seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages.  Two of the
lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the lawsuits is on
behalf of 29 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual
lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.  The Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against
them, except where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate.
In addition to the 43 pending lawsuits, there are at least 31
pending pre-litigation claims (at least 6 of which involve a
death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits.  The
Company has also resolved a significant number of related product
liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self
insurance, the Company possesses third party product liability
insurance, which the Company believes is applicable to the pending
lawsuits and claims.


KEY BABY: Recalls 29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Pacifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Key Baby LLC, of Lutz, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about
29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Infant Ortho and Bulb Pacifiers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Pampers(R) licensed their brand name to Key Baby.  The recalled
products were manufactured by Tahoe Enterprises, of China.

The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards and pose a
choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been reported.

The pacifier comes in yellow, pink or blue colors and is made of
silicone. Only "Stage 1" pacifiers are recalled. "Stage 1" and
"Ortho" or "Bulb" are printed on the package.  The recalled
pacifiers have an oval-shaped mouth guard and "Pampers" molded on
to the handle side of the mouth guard.  The product comes two per
package.  The pacifiers were sold in retail stores nationwide from
April 2010 through February 2011 for about $6.  Pictures of the
recalled pacifiers are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11188.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from
infants and contact Key Baby for instructions on returning the
product for a full refund or $10 coupon toward the purchase of any
Pampers(R) Natural Stages products.  For additional information,
contact Key Baby toll-free at (800) 447-1224 anytime, or visit the
company's Web site at http:/hwww.key-baby.com/


KID BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Custom Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kid Brands, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
alleging that it issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding compliance with customs laws, financial reports and
internal controls, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
persons who allegedly purchased the Company's common stock between
March 26, 2010 and March 15, 2011.  The lawsuit names the Company
and certain of its current officers and certain of its current and
former directors, as defendants.  The complaint alleges one claim
for relief pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and a second claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
claiming generally that the Company and/or the other defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements during the
relevant time period regarding compliance with customs laws, the
Company's financial reports and internal controls.  The complaint
does not state the size of the class or quantify the amount of
damages sought.  Additional litigation may be initiated against
the Company based on the alleged items at issue in the complaint.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the existing
lawsuit or the likelihood that further proceedings will be
instituted against it.  The cost of defending against the existing
lawsuit or any future lawsuits or proceedings may be high, and
these legal proceedings may also result in the diversion of the
Company's management's time and attention away from its business.
In the event that there is an adverse ruling in any legal
proceeding, the Company may be required to make payments to third
parties that could harm its business or financial results.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "FLSA" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., won a class action lawsuit filed by
plaintiffs asserting that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 28, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of current and former business, systems, and
technical consultants.  The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson
Software, Inc. et. al., alleged that the Company failed to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
state law, and alleged violations of state record-keeping
requirements.  The suit also alleged certain violations of ERISA
and unjust enrichment.  Relief sought included back wages,
corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees.  The Company successfully moved the
case from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the District of Minnesota.  On
November 12, 2010, the court heard oral arguments concerning two
motions that had been filed by Lawson a motion to de-certify the
FLSA collective action and a motion for summary judgment.  On
January 27, 2011, the court granted both the motion to decertify
the FLSA collective action and the motion for summary judgment in
favor of Lawson.  On February 28, 2011, the plaintiff's counsel
confirmed that there would be no appeal of this decision.   As a
result, Lawson was found to have no payment obligations to the
opt-in class members and the case is now over.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Property
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that homeless people ask in a
federal class action that Los Angeles and its Police and Public
Works Departments stop confiscating and destroying their property
just because they are homeless.

A copy of the Complaint in Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles,
Case No. 11-cv-02874 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/06/LACops.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 550
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com


MARUTI SUZUKI: Recalls 13,157 Diesel Cars Over Defective Bolt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Gulati, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. said Wednesday it will recall 13,157
diesel cars manufactured between Nov. 13 and Dec. 4, 2010, to
inspect a defective auto part.

The recall will include 4,505 units of sedan Swift Dzire, 6,841
units of the Swift hatchback and 1,811 units of the Ritz small
car, Maruti said. The recall doesn't include any exported cars.

Maruti will inspect a connecting rod bolt in all these cars and
its dealers will contact the owners.

"If the connecting rod bolt is found defective, the company will
replace the component free of cost," the company said.

The current recall is the second within 14 months by India's
largest car maker by sales. The Indian unit of Suzuki Motor Corp.
in February last year recalled more than 100,000 units of its
small car A-Star to replace a defective auto part in the fuel
tank.

Maruti also joins Honda Motor Co.'s local unit in recalling cars
more than once since early 2010.  Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. in
February said it will recall 57,853 units of its City sedan,
produced between November 2008 and December 2009, to replace a
faulty part as part of a global exercise.

In January 2010 it also replaced defective power window switches
that could cause fire in City sedans.

Tata Motors Ltd., India's biggest auto maker by revenue, offered
additional safety equipment on the Nano after some incidents of
the mini car catching fire. The company maintained the actions
didn't constitute a recall.

Maruti didn't disclose the cost of the recall. The recall of A-
Star is estimated to have cost up to 320 million rupees ($7.23
million), of which Maruti spent 100 million rupees to 120 million
rupees while its part suppliers covered the rest.


MEDIFAST INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
Medifast Inc. is facing two class action complaints filed in
Maryland, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter, et
al v. Medifast, Inc., et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of
damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.

On March 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg
v Medifast, Inc. et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776{BEL}, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b)5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10(b)5 promulgated under Section 10(b)5 of the
Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of
damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each
complaint and intends to vigorously defend each proceeding.
Accordingly, the Company believes that either proceeding is not
likely to have a material adverse effect upon its business or
operations.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Conference Call Held to Discuss Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for the National
Football League and its players held a conference call Friday to
discuss mediation with U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson,
who is currently deciding whether to lift the lockout.

League spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the call took place and
said Judge Nelson wanted details to remain private.  Jeffrey
Kessler, a lawyer for the players, declined to comment.

DeMaurice Smith was formally added as an attorney for the players
on Friday.  Mr. Smith is the executive director of the NFL Players
Association, which is now officially a trade association and not a
union.  Lawyers who practice in a different state must file for
approval through the court.

NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis confirmed that the move allows Mr.
Smith to participate in any mediation sessions that might take
place under Nelson's supervision.

After a hearing Wednesday on the players' request for an
injunction to stop the lockout, Judge Nelson urged both sides to
resume talks toward a new labor pact.  Negotiations broke down
last month.

Both sides expressed a willingness to talk again after the
hearing, but the NFL wants to resume negotiations before a federal
mediator in Washington while the players prefer to remain in
Nelson's court.

Lawyers from each side sent letters to each other and to Nelson
outlining their stances.

"The purpose of the mediation would be to negotiate a settlement
not only of the issues raised in the complaints, but also the many
other issues that must be resolved to permit the upcoming season
to be played and for the league to operate effectively," wrote
David Boies, an attorney for the NFL.

He also said the federal mediator has a 16-day "head start" on the
issues.

Barbara Berens, a lawyer for the players, spelled out support of
Nelson's offer to supervise.

"We think this is an excellent suggestion and are prepared to
engage in such mediation without delay," Ms. Berens wrote.

The players voted to dissolve the union and filed an antitrust
lawsuit against the league last month, and owners declared a
lockout.  The players say the lockout is illegal, and the owners
say the decertification of the union was a negotiating ploy.

No fresh talks have occurred since the expiration of the previous
CBA on March 11.

Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service relates NFL
players and team owners dispute over how to divvy up billions of
dollars in television revenue.  The NFL claims its annual receipts
come to $9.3 billion a year, but players say that number "just
scratches the surface" of the real money involved.

Owners' refusal to open their books is one of the players' key
complaints.

There are now three class actions against the NFL and its teams,
with the latest filed on April 5.  The first class action, led by
Tom Brady, is on behalf of active players.  The second, led by
Carl Eller, is on behalf of retirees.  The third, led by Garrett
Andrews, is on behalf of would-be rookies and prospective players.

In the Eller case, retired players cited Dan Greeley, CEO of
Network Insights, who doubted the NFL's self-reported income and
expenditures: "The NFL is like Procter & Gamble.  That's the
holding company, the core operation, but then each brand has its
own team and world of revenue. . . .  So the $9.3 billion pie just
scratches the surface and doesn't get into how much is spent
around stadiums, merchandise, agents and all the way down to mom-
and-pop shops."

The Eller complaint cites a slew of revenue streams, each of them
enormous: "the NFL redistributes upwards of $4 billion in radio,
television and digital earnings across its 32 teams -- $125
million apiece, plus an equal share for the league . . . The NFL
earns huge amounts annually from its telecasting deals with, inter
alia, ESPN ($1.1 billion), DirecTV ($1 billion), NBC ($650
million), Fox ($712.5 million), and CBS ($622.5 million)."

And, the players say, companies "pour money" for the right to
associate their brands with the NFL.  Among them: Nike's $1.1
billion for the NFL's apparel sponsorship, Pepsi's $560 million
over 8 years, Gatorade's $45 million a year, Verizon's $720
million over 4 years, and Anheuser-Busch's $1.2 billion over 6
years.  Teams cut their own deals for "pouring rights" over beer
at stadiums, and stadium-naming rights are also enormous: $10
million a year from Reliant Energy to the Houston Texas, and, "In
Los Angeles, Farmers Insurance has promised $700 million over 30
years to name a stadium that doesn't exist yet," according to the
Eller complaint.

Players say the league has been planning a lockout for some time.

The Eller complaint, which joined the Brady complaint 2 weeks ago,
claims the NFL has made contract negotiations with advertisers and
broadcasters that would financially support the NFL in the event
of a lockout.

The NFL negotiated a contract extension with DirectTV that would
have DirectTV pay a heavy fee if the 2011 NFL season is not
canceled, and an extra 9% if the season is canceled -- so the NFL
will make more money from the cable broadcaster if there is no
season, according to the complaint.

The players say that in 2009 the NFL negotiated with broadcasters
that in the event of a work stoppage, CBS and Fox would still pay
rights fees.  If the whole season is canceled, the contracts would
be extended for an additional season.  In total, the NFL "obtained
a $4 billion war chest to use against the NFLPA [NFL Players
Association] in the event of a lockout," according to the
complaint.

The owners claim that the Norris LaGuardia Act prohibits the court
from issuing an injunction, because the case "involves or grows
out of" a labor dispute, which should be handled by the National
Labor Relations Board.  They also say that the players union acted
in bad faith by entering dissolution hours before the collective
bargaining agreement expired to circumvent the 6-month delay
normally required to file an antitrust lawsuit.

On March 31, the NFLPA demanded unspecified damages in a
memorandum pursuant to the court's March 1 order.  The NFLPA's
lead counsel, Timothy Thornton, with Dewey & LeBoeuf of Manhattan,
filed the document, which blacks-out dollar amounts.

"As this Court found [on March 1], the NFL Defendants breached the
SSA by failing to 'in good faith act and use their best efforts
. . . to maximize Total Revenues for each playing season during
the term of [the SSA].' SSA, Art. X, Sec. 1(a)," the filing
states. "Specifically, Defendants acted with 'a design . . . to
seek an unconscionable advantage' over the Players in direct
contravention of their SSA 'good faith' obligations. Order at 20.
Defendants also breached their 'best efforts' obligations by,
among other things, not using their market power to benefit joint
NFL-Player interests, but to 'actively renegotiat[e] broadcast
contracts to ensure favorable changes for [themselves] and [to]
disadvantage the Players. Id. at 21 n.6, 24.

"Defendants' SSA breaches were deliberate, contemplated and
willful.  Defendants committed these breaches 'to ensure revenue
for [themselves] in the event of a lockout,' which had been
planned since at least October 2008. Id. at 19; Trial Ex. 221, R.
193 ('need to realistically assume we are locking out in 2011').
True to their plan, on March 12, 2011, Defendants 'locked out' the
Players."

At the conclusion of the memo, the players asked the court to
"enter a judgment awarding (1) additional compensatory damages of
$XX million, plus interest as permitted by law; (2) punitive
damages at least three times the total compensatory damages award
(including the $6.9 million already awarded by the Special
Master), plus interest as permitted by law; (3) an injunction
prohibiting Defendants from exercising their contractual right to
access the repayable Lockout Provision funds unless they first
reach an agreement with Class Counsel in White on how to share
such 'lockout loans' with the Players; (4) an injunction ordering
that the $XX million, non-refundable DirecTV payment be placed
into an escrow account until after the lockout has ended; (5) if
the Players are not awarded damages in connection with the $XX
million, non-refundable DirecTV payment, an injunction ordering
those funds to remain in the escrow account until after the
lockout has ended and until Defendants reach an agreement with
Class Counsel in White on sharing such funds between Defendants
and Players; and (6) any further and additional relief that this
Court deems proper under the circumstances to prevent Defendants'
from continuing to benefit from their bad faith conduct."


NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeal From Class Certification Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court's
decision certifying the class in a putative class action
filed in Alabama remains pending, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State
of Alabama.  The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit (GCOP)
in the proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of
the Plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff alleges that the failure to
include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of
its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary
damages in the form of contractual damages.  A class certification
hearing was held on March 1, 2010, with the trial court taking the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement.  On
May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling granting
Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.  The Company filed its
Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010.  The Company denies
Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage, including
dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile homeowners and
personal non-standard automobile lines of insurance in 11 states.
The company, through its life insurance subsidiary, offers a basic
line of life, and health and accident insurance products in six
states.


OFFICE DEPOT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint
against Office Depot, Inc. and certain of the Company's officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock and
other publicly-traded securities of Office Depot between July 27,
2010 and March 31, 2011, inclusive.

If you purchased Office Depot common stock or other Office Depot
securities during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60
days from April 6.  Any member of the investor class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact:

          Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/

There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class
Period, Office Depot and certain of its officers and directors
overstated the Company's profits and the value of the Company's
assets in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

As alleged in the complaint, Office Depot shocked the market on
March 31, 2011 when it disclosed that the IRS had rejected
significant carry-back tax "benefits" the Company had claimed in
the 2Q, 3Q, 4Q and FY 2010, requiring that the Company restate its
previously reported financial results for those reporting periods.

Rather than the net earnings of $33 million Office Depot had
previously reported for fiscal 2010, the Company would report a
net loss of $46 million and increase the net loss attributable to
common shareholders from $2 million to $82 million.  Additionally,
the $63 million current tax receivable associated with the
purported tax carry-back benefit would be removed from the
Company's balance sheet, which was expected to significantly
reduce anticipated 2011 operating cash flow.

As alleged in the complaint, Office Depot's Chief Financial
Officer admitted that Office Depot had been in discussions with
its tax advisors about the viability of carrying back certain net
operating tax losses to prior tax years under economic stimulus-
based tax legislation enacted in 2009 throughout the Class Period.
None of this had been disclosed to investors though.

On the news that Office Depot's 2Q, 3Q and 4Q 2010 earnings
reports were false and misleading, its assets were overstated, and
its 2011 financial results would be adversely impacted, Office
Depot's stock price plummeted, closing at $4.21 on April 1, 2011.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Settles "Nelson" Class Action Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., settled the case captioned
Ned Nelson, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. BC 436947, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging various
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and
rest break rules and regulations.  The complaint sought class
certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties.
In March 2011, the Company settled this case for a nominal amount.

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/--
is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California
lifestyle.  The company sells casual apparel with a limited
selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs
of teens and young adults.  As of May 1, 2010, the company
operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a
total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Gleason" Case in Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is defending itself from a
lawsuit captioned Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Case
No. 457654, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff in the matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things.  The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.  The Company has not yet been served in this case, but
when it is served, it will file an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/--
is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California
lifestyle.  The company sells casual apparel with a limited
selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs
of teens and young adults.  As of May 1, 2010, the company
operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a
total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Beeney" Suit in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is defending itself from a
lawsuit captioned Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corporation, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29,
2011.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things.  The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.  The Company has not yet been served in this case, but
when it is served, it will file an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/--
is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California
lifestyle.  The company sells casual apparel with a limited
selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs
of teens and young adults.  As of May 1, 2010, the company
operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a
total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico.


POLAND: Rybinski Mulls Class Action Over Pension Reform Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
TheNews.pl reports that one of Poland's top liberal economists and
fierce critic of the current government's fiscal policy has
announced that he is preparing for class action against the
proposed pension reform bill.

"We are preparing the framework by which a class action concerning
the [pension reform] can be launched," economist and former World
Bank consultant Krzysztof Rybinski stated, on April 6.

According to Mr. Rybinski, a Web site billed to go online in the
coming days is to collect signatures from citizens against the
governmental legislation, although the class action will only be
taken to court if the Constitutional Tribunal deems the
legislation is not in line with Poland's constitution.

"This is about protecting the interests of citizens who will lose
out because of the decision [to implement the reform], and the
money lost as a result," Mr. Rybinski underlined.

Mr. Rybinski, who was also deputy head of Poland's central bank,
added that it may be a number of months before the Constitutional
Tribunal passes its verdict on the matter, and "[only] then will
we be ready to file the class action of thousands of Poles in
order to claim their rights and compensation."

Mr. Rybinski believes that the president should hand over the
draft legislation to the Constitutional Tribunal, "because if a
former chairman of the [. . .] Tribune says it breaks not one, but
many paragraphs of the Constitution, then there is a problem."

The comments come after an announcement from Presidential Advisor
Tomasz Nalecz, who said on April 5 that President Komorowski
should sign the reform package by April 7.

Poles currently put pension contributions into both the state
insurance company ZUS, and a private pension fund of their choice,
after reforms to the pension system came into force in the late
1990s.

The funds paid into the state system are used for those already on
pension.  The contributions put into private funds are to be used
by workers who retire in the future.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he hopes to gradually increase
the amount put into private funds to 3.5% by 2017.

The plan is deigned to cut borrowing needs by PLN12 billion
(EUR3 billion) this year and PLN190 billion by 2020, Mr. Tusk said
in March, cutting the budget deficit from 7.9% to 6% of GDP this
year.


RICHARD GOLDSTONE: May Face Class Action Over Israel Opinion
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Anna Stoil and Tovah Lazaroff, writing for The Jerusalem
Post, report that MK Danny Danon initiates lawsuit which will be
submitted to U.S. District Court in New York: "The distorted
picture of the State of Israel that Goldstone generated harmed,
harms and will continue to harm Israel."

Jewish attorneys plan to file a class action civil suit in the
United States against South African jurist Richard Goldstone this
week.

The move comes in the aftermath of an opinion piece Goldstone
published in the Washington Post, in which he stated that he had
erroneously accused Israel of internationally targeting innocent
civilians in Gaza in a report he submitted on the matter to the
United Nations in 2009.

The report accuses Israel of possible war crimes and crimes
against humanity.  It suggests that the UN Security Council
consider referring the matter to the International Criminal Court
in The Hague.

MK Danny Danon (Likud), who is visiting the United States,
initiated the push for the lawsuit.  During his US visit, he met
with a group of attorneys who are interested in pursuing the case
on a voluntary basis.

According to the Danon's office, the suit will be submitted to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in
Manhattan by attorney Steve Goldberg.

In the civil suit, filed as a class action complaint, the
plaintiff says that he and others were "victims of libel by and
through allegations and distortions publicly stated in the report
on the State of Israel's military actions during" the IDF's
offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip during the winter of
2008-2009.

Both Danon and MK Ronit Tirosh (Kadima) are listed as parties to
the suit, which asks that the case be heard by a jury, and demands
both an official apology as well as symbolic compensation to be
paid to the State of Israel.

Mr. Danon said he plans to file a similar suit in Israel against
Goldstone, which would go into effect should the judge visit
Israel.

"The Goldstone Report was a 2010 model of the blood libel," said
Mr. Danon, who is the chairman of the Knesset's Immigration,
Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee.

"The distorted picture of the State of Israel that Goldstone
generated harmed, harms and will continue to harm Israel and her
citizens for decades.  A public apology in any state may help to
reduce the damage that was caused," Mr. Danon said.


ROYAL BANK: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc., a subsidiary of The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc, is facing a class action lawsuit over
excessive overdraft fees, according to the Company's March 31,
2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In the U.S., Citizens Financial Group, in common with other US
banks, has been named as a defendant in a class action asserting
that Citizens charges excessive overdraft fees.  The plaintiffs
claim that overdraft fees resulting from point of sale and
automated teller machine (ATM) transactions violate the duty of
good faith implied in Citizens' customer account agreement and
constitute an unfair trade practice.  RBS Group considers that it
has substantial and credible legal and factual defenses to these
claims and will defend them vigorously.  RBS Group is unable
reliably to estimate the liability, if any, that might arise or
its effect on RBS Group's consolidated net assets, operating
results or cash flows in any particular period.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) --
http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of
Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc
(NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks.  The
company's activities are organized in six business divisions:
Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and
United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising
Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS
Insurance and Manufacturing.  On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings
B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V.,
Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and
controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding
N.V. (ABN AMRO).  In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire
interest in Global Voice Group Ltd.


ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Against N.Y. Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claims filed against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc in a
shareholder lawsuit filed in New York court remain pending,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

RBS Group and a number of its subsidiaries and certain individual,
officers and directors have been named as defendants in a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges
certain false and misleading statements and omissions in public
filings and other communications during the period March 1, 2007,
to January 19, 2009, and variously asserts claims under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the US Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10 and 20
of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule
10b-5 under the Act.

The putative class is composed of (1) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired RBS Group ordinary securities and US American
depositary receipts (ADRs) between March 1, 2007, and January 19,
2009; and/or (2) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
RBS Group Series Q, R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar
preference shares issued pursuant or traceable to the April 8,
2005 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registration
statement and were damaged thereby.  Plaintiffs seek unquantified
damages on behalf of the putative class.

On January 11, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims
except those based on the purchase of RBS Group Series Q, R, S, T,
and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares.  The Court has
not yet considered potential grounds for dismissal of the
remaining claims, and directed RBS Group to re-file its motion to
dismiss those claims within 45 days of its ruling.  On January 28,
2011, a new complaint was filed asserting claims under Sections 10
and 20 of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of ADRs.

RBS Group has also received notification of similar prospective
claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no court
proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.  RBS
Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and
factual defenses to the remaining and prospective claims and will
defend them vigorously.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) --
http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of
Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc
(NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks.  The
company's activities are organized in six business divisions:
Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and
United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising
Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS
Insurance and Manufacturing.  On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings
B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V.,
Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and
controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding
N.V. (ABN AMRO).  In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire
interest in Global Voice Group Ltd.


ROYAL BANK: Faces Securitization and Securities-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc is facing lawsuits over
securitization and securities underwriting in the United States,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011 FORM 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in a number of
purported class actions and other lawsuits in the United States
that relate to the securitization and securities underwriting
businesses.  In general, the cases involve the issuance of
mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, or
public debt or equity where the plaintiffs have brought actions
against the issuers and underwriters of the securities (including
RBS Group companies) claiming that certain disclosures made in
connection with the relevant offerings of the securities were
false or misleading with respect to alleged "sub-prime" mortgage
exposure.  RBS Group considers that it has substantial and
credible legal and factual defenses to these claims and will
continue to defend them vigorously.  RBS Group cannot at this
stage reliably estimate the liability, if any, that may arise as a
result of or in connection with these lawsuits, individually or in
the aggregate, or their effect on RBS Group's consolidated net
assets, operating results or cash flows in any particular period.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) --
http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of
Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc
(NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks.  The
company's activities are organized in six business divisions:
Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and
United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising
Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS
Insurance and Manufacturing.  On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings
B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V.,
Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and
controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding
N.V. (ABN AMRO).  In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire
interest in Global Voice Group Ltd.


SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to File 3rd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scholastic Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its objection to a
plaintiff's motion to file a third amended class action complaint
and to substitute lead plaintiff, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.

The Company is party to certain actions originally filed by each
of Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund and Paul Baicu, which
were consolidated on November 8, 2007.  On September 26, 2008, the
plaintiff sought leave of the Court to file a second amended class
action complaint, in order to add allegations relating to the
Company's restatement announced in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K filed on July 30, 2008.  The Court thereafter dismissed
the Company's pending motion to dismiss as moot.  On October 20,
2008, the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint, and on
October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  On September 30, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for
failure to state a cause of action, while also granting leave to
the plaintiff to move to file a new proposed amended complaint.
On December 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a proposed third amended class action complaint, as well as a
motion to replace Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund with
City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, and, on January 14, 2011, the Company filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motions for leave to file a third
amended class action complaint and to substitute lead plaintiff,
which was argued on March 3, 2011, and is awaiting decision by the
court.  The proposed third amended class action complaint shortens
the original class action period to end on December 16, 2005,
rather than on March 23, 2006, but otherwise continues to allege
securities fraud relating to statements made by the Company
concerning its operations and financial results, now for the
period between March 18, 2005, and December 16, 2005, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company continues to
believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit
and is vigorously defending the lawsuit.

Scholastic Corporation -- http://www.scholastic.com/-- publishes
and distributes children's books and is a leader in educational
technology and related services and children's media.  Scholastic
creates quality books, print and technology-based learning
materials and programs, magazines, multi-media and other products
that help children learn both at school and at home.  The company
distributes its products and services worldwide through a variety
of channels, including school-based book clubs and book fairs,
retail stores, schools, libraries, on-air, and online.


SEMTECH CORP: Hearing on Securities Suit Pact Set for April 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has set April 11, 2011, as the hearing date to
consider preliminary approval of an agreement in principle to
settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the
consolidated class action concerning Semtech Corporation's stock
option accounting practices captioned In Re: Semtech Corporation
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS, according to
the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 30, 2011.

Two separate purported class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers in August and
October 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
Company securities from dates in 2002 to July 2006.  The cases
alleged violations of Federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's past stock option practices.  In February 2008, the
Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (MPERS) filed a
motion in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment
of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel.
The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008,
initiating the consolidated action with MPERS as the lead
plaintiff.  In December 2008, per motions filed by the defendants,
the Court granted motions to dismiss in favor of defendants Jason
Carlson (former Chief Executive Officer of the Company) and Mohan
Maheswaran (current Chief Executive Officer of the Company)
regarding claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The Court denied all other motions of
all defendants, including other motions to dismiss brought in
relation to alternate allegations raised against Messrs. Carlson
and Maheswaran, who remain pending as defendants in the matter.
In January 2010, the Company made a firm settlement offer to the
plaintiffs in the amount of $10 million, offered as full payment
to settle any and all claims arising from or relating to the
matters at issue in the litigation.  The offer was not accepted,
but remained open and available to the plaintiffs without
withdrawal or revocation by the Company from the initial date of
the offer.  In August 2010, the Court issued its class
certification order, certifying the plaintiff class as persons who
acquired common stock of the Company between August 27, 2002, and
July 19, 2006 (inclusive).

At mediation held on December 5, 2010, an agreement in principle
to settle the class action litigation was reached.  The Company
has agreed to pay $20 million to settle all claims in the
litigation.  The agreement in principle contemplates the
negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement.  As a
result of this agreement, the Company recorded an additional
charge of $10.0 million in fiscal year 2011 to increase its total
accrued liability for this matter to $20.0 million.

The proposed settlement would fully resolve all claims against the
Company, all current officers and directors of the Company named
in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the
Company named in the lawsuit.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as
part of the proposed settlement.  The settlement is subject to
preliminary approval by the Court, notice to the putative class
and subsequent final approval by the Court.  The preliminary
approval hearing is scheduled for April 11, 2011.  The Company
expects preliminary approval to be given by the Court, as well as
final approval at a later date to be determined.

Semtech Corporation (Nasdaq: SMTC) -- http://www.semtech.com/--
is a supplier of analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for high-
end consumer, computing, communications and industrial equipment.


SIGNATURE HOSPITAL: Responds to Employee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jody Murphy, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reports
that a spokeswoman for Signature Hospital Corp. responded to a
class-action lawsuit filed by two attorneys on behalf of its
former employees.

Lauren Fulton with Jarrard Phillips Cate & Hancock Inc., a health
care public affairs firm, emailed a statement to the News and
Sentinel on April 4 on behalf of Signature Hospital Corp.

"Normally, it has been the policy of St. Joseph's Hospital and its
former owner Signature Hospital Corp. to not comment on pending
litigation, but this is an issue likely to be of interest to the
general public so St. Joseph's will attempt to provide information
if it is deemed appropriate by our legal counsel," Ms. Fulton said
in a statement.

The statement did not address the claims laid out by the class-
action lawsuit filed by attorneys Ginny Conley and George Cosenza.

Last month, Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza filed suit contending
Signature Hospital Corp., doing business as St. Joseph's Hospital,
failed to compensate employees for their accrued sick leave
following the hospital's purchase by West Virginia United Health
Care System and merger with Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital.

Nine former hospital employees were listed in the suit; however,
Ms. Conley told Wood County Circuit Court Judge Robert Waters she
and Mr. Cosenza have since been contacted by 130 former St.
Joseph's employees.

Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza told Waters they believe 613 former
employees were short-changed by Signature.

"Many times major choices or decisions such as the sale of the
hospital operations and transfer of employees is a difficult
process and is a challenge.  This particular sale and transfer was
both difficult and challenging because of its size and all of the
moving parts," Ms. Fulton stated.

Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza sent certified notices to Signature
officials, former CEO Charles Miller and CFO Steve Peterson.
Certified mail was also sent via the West Virginia Secretary of
State's office.  The notices were all received and signed for by
the same person, according to the attorneys.  However, Ms. Conley
said they have not been contacted by any legal representative on
behalf of Signature.

Ms. Fulton said the lawsuit was fairly new and company officials
have started reviewing and investigating the issues raised.

Ms. Fulton said throughout the sale process Signature did
everything it could to ensure all eligible employees were offered
employment in their same positions upon the closing of the
transaction with a benefits package "substantially comparable" to
what had been provided at St. Joseph's.

According to Ms. Fulton, Signature made sure all of the eligible
St. Joseph's employees received credit for years of service at
St. Joseph's toward their eligibility for retirement, health and
welfare benefits and that they were eligible for additional
benefits which they did not have as employees of St. Joseph's.

Ms. Fulton also stated employees' accumulated paid time off was
transferred over and was protected as part of the transition.

"St. Joseph's is proud of its record and service to the people of
Parkersburg over the years and always sought to provide the best
health care with the most competent health care employees to be
found anywhere.

"We appreciate the work and care provided by all employees at St.
Joseph's Hospital and know they will continue to provide the best
quality health care to the community in the future as they
continue to work with their new employer," she added.


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed
against Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., related to the
Company's 1999 initial public offering remains pending in a New
York court, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 28, 2001, a complaint was filed against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and was amended on April 19, 2002. The amended complaint
alleges that the named plaintiff, Mitchell Wolf, purchased shares
of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant to the October 27,
1999 prospectus and registration statement relating to the
Company's initial public offering, which closed on November 2,
1999.  The complaint was brought on behalf of Mr. Wolf and an
alleged class of similarly situated purchasers against the
Company, eight underwriters and their successors-in-interest who
led or otherwise participated in the Company's IPO, two members of
its senior management team, one of whom is the Chairman of its
Board of Directors, and an additional director.  The complaint was
never served upon the Individual Defendants.

This case is one of more than 300 similar cases brought by similar
counsel against more than 300 issuers, 40 underwriters and 1,000
individual defendants alleging, in general, violations of federal
securities laws in connection with initial public offerings, in
particular, failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly
solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
shares issued in connection with each offering. All of these
cases, including the one involving the Company, have been assigned
for consolidated pretrial purposes to one judge of the Southern
District of New York. The issuer defendants in the consolidated
cases filed motions to dismiss the consolidated cases. These
motions to dismiss covered issues common among all Issuer
Defendants and issues common among all underwriter defendants in
the consolidated cases. As a result of these motions, the
Individual Defendants were dismissed from one of the claims
against them, specifically the Section 10b-5 claim. On September
21, 2007, Kaye Scholer LLP, on behalf of the Individual
Defendants, executed a tolling agreement with plaintiffs providing
for the dismissal without prejudice of all claims against the
Individual Defendants upon the provision to plaintiffs of
documentation showing that SBS has entity coverage for the period
in question. Documentation of such coverage was subsequently
provided to plaintiffs on December 19, 2007.

On October 13, 2004, the Southern District of New York granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in six "focus cases"
out of the more than 300 consolidated class actions. The Company
was not named in any of the six "focus cases." On August 31, 2005,
the Southern District of New York issued an order of preliminary
approval of a settlement proposal among the investors in the
plaintiff class, the Issuer Defendants (including us) and the
Issuer Defendants' insurance carriers.  The principal components
of the Issuers Settlement were: (1) a release of all claims
against the Issuer Defendants and their directors, officers and
certain other related parties arising out of the alleged wrongful
conduct in the amended complaint; (2) the assignment to the
plaintiffs of certain of the Issuer Defendants' potential claims
against the Underwriters; and (3) a guarantee by the insurers to
the plaintiffs of the difference between $1.0 billion and any
lesser amount recovered by the plaintiffs from the Underwriter
Defendants. The payments were to be charged to each Issuer
Defendant's insurance policy on a pro rata basis. The plaintiffs
appealed the Issuers Settlement to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit reversed the order, holding that plaintiffs could not
satisfy the predominance requirement for a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) class action. On June 25, 2007, in light of the
Second Circuit's reversal of the class certification order and its
subsequent denial of plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing or
rehearing en banc, the Southern District of New York entered a
stipulation between plaintiffs and the Issuer Defendants,
terminating the proposed Issuers Settlement which the Southern
District of New York had preliminarily approved on August 31,
2005.

On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six
"focus cases" and amended master allegations in the consolidated
actions. On November 13, 2007, the Underwriter Defendants and
Issuer Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints in the
six "focus cases." On March 26, 2008, the Southern District of New
York granted in part the motion as to a subset of plaintiffs'
Section 11 claims (alleging civil liabilities on account of false
registration statements), but denied the motion as to plaintiffs'
other claims.

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification with respect to the six focus cases, based on newly
proposed class definitions. On October 10, 2008, at plaintiffs'
request, the Southern District of New York ordered the withdrawal
without prejudice of plaintiffs' renewed motion, which had been
fully briefed and was sub judice.

On January 7, 2008, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion (in
which the Issuer Defendants joined) to strike class allegations in
26 of the consolidated cases, including the case against the
Company, on the ground that plaintiffs lacked a putative class
representative in those cases at the time of their May 30, 2007
oral motion. On May 13, 2008, the Southern District of New York
issued an order granting the motion in part and striking certain
of the class allegations relating to the Section 10b-5 claims in 8
of the 26 actions, including the Section 10b-5 claim against SBS.
The order also requires plaintiffs to make certain disclosures
with respect to the putative class representatives in the
remaining 18 actions. Once the disclosures are filed, the
Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants may seek
clarification of the Southern District of New York's May 13, 2008
order with respect to the status of the remaining 10b-5-related
class allegations in the other 8 actions, including the SBS
action, as well as the status of the Section 11-related class
allegations.

On June 11, 2009, pursuant to a motion filed on April 2, 2009, the
Southern District of New York issued a preliminary order of
approval of a settlement of all of the consolidated cases,
including the case against SBS. On September 19, 2009, the
Southern District of New York conducted a hearing regarding the
final approval of the settlement of all consolidated cases and, on
October 5, 2009, issued an opinion finally approving the
settlement. The settlement, which is subject to appeal, will
result in a release of all claims against the Underwriter
Defendants and the Issuer Defendants, and their officers and
directors, in exchange for an aggregate sum of approximately $600
million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of the
class plaintiffs. The Company's and the Individual Defendants'
share of the Settlement Amount would be fully funded by insurance.

On October 23, 2009, several objecting members of the class filed
a petition for leave in the Second Circuit to appeal the Southern
District of New York's class definition for purposes of the
October 5, 2009 settlement.  Several Objectors have also filed
notices of appeal in the Second Circuit from the Southern District
of New York's order approving the settlement. On October 29, 2009
plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the Objectors'
petition. On November 2, 2009, the Underwriter Defendants filed a
response to the Objectors' petition, taking no position on the
petition, but noting that the classes were approved for settlement
purposes only and reserving the right to oppose class
certification in the event the settlement is not finally approved.
The Issuer Defendants have not taken a position on the appeals.
On October 7, 2010, all but two of the Objectors entered into a
stipulation with plaintiffs withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice. The two remaining Objectors have since submitted briefs
to the Second Circuit in support of their appeals. On December 8,
2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the
remaining Objectors' appeals based on alleged violations of the
Second Circuit's rules. The motion is fully briefed and is sub
judice. The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding the
remaining Objectors' appeals is stayed pending determination of
the motion to dismiss.

                   About Spanish Broadcasting

Headquartered in Coconut Grove, Florida, Spanish Broadcasting
System, Inc. -- http://www.spanishbroadcasting.com/-- owns and
operates 21 radio stations targeting the Hispanic audience.  The
Company also owns and operates Mega TV, a television operation
with over-the-air, cable and satellite distribution and affiliates
throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.  Its revenue for the twelve
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, was approximately $140 million.


ST. LOUIS COMPOSTING: Valley Park Residents Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that residents of the Highland
Village subdivision in Valley Park are urging the Board of
Alderman to take action against St. Louis Composting, 39 Old Elam
Avenue.  The composting site is across the Meramec River from
their homes.

Harold Tubbs brought a petition to the aldermen on April 4 signed
by more than 50 of his neighbors asking that Valley Park limit the
compost manufacturer's hours of operation and to enforce noise
ordinances already on the books.

"I guess we're heading down the road to a class action suit.  I am
simply not going to take this much longer," said Mr. Tubbs.  He
said the company runs noisy equipment seven days a week, often
until sundown.

Peter Frollo also spoke against St. Louis Composting, citing
concern for his family's health.

The aldermen agreed to take the request into legislative
committee, where they could craft a stricter noise ordinance.


STATE STREET: New York Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kentouris, writing for On Wall Street, reports that a New
York judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against State
Street as the sponsor of a mutual fund, saying that even though
the mutual fund misrepresented its risks, investors were not
harmed.  That's because the fund correctly calculated its net
asset value.

The decision, made on March 31 by Judge Richard Howell of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, didn't sit
well with some attorneys specializing in investment managers by
surprise.

"The reasoning in this case is somewhat tortured," says Todd
Cipperman, principal of Cipperman & Co, a Wayne, Penn., law firm
in a communique with clients on April 5.  "The fund manager can
say anything in the prospectus as long as the NAV is accurate."

The plaintiffs -- Ning Yiu and others -- alleged that the offering
statements of State Street's Yield Plus Fund "misrepresented the
nature of the securities or investments held by the Yield Plus
Fund, misrepresented the description and/or objectives of the fund
and misrepresented the fund's exposure to risky mortgage-related
assets and the risk of investing in the fund."

The plaintiffs also alleged that the fund overstated the value of
its holdings by reporting "inflated values" for the fund's
mortgage-related securities and that the fund miscalculated the
percentage of mortgage-backed securities it held.

Judge Howell ruled that the plaintiffs could only win damages if
the drop in the net asset value of the fund actually were the
result of a "materialization of a risk contained within a material
statement, not to those that are somehow connected with the
misstatement or even those that are simply within the zone of risk
of the misstatement."  That meant that the Securities Act of 1933
requires a direct cause and effect for an investor in a mutual
fund to successfully sue for misrepresentations in a registration
statement and prospectus.

Judge Howell blamed Congress rather than his apparent narrow
interpretation of the Securities Act of 1933 for his decision
which he admitted conflicts with decisions made by other courts in
similar situations.

"Where the NAV does not react to any misstatements in the fund's
prospectus, no connection between the alleged material
misstatement and a diminution in the security's value has been or
could be alleged," wrote Judge Howell.  "It seems likely that
Congress never considered it might be creating a loophole for
fraudulent misrepresentations by mutual fund managers when
enacting these provisions.  Closing the loophole requires
legislative action."


STATION CASINOS: Won't Need to Distribute NPH Warrants
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada granted
Station Casinos LLC's motion to modify its plan of reorganization
so it would not need to distribute an NPH Warrant worth
approximately 13 cents to each of the employees, who were involved
in a class action lawsuit filed against the Company in Nevada,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141.  The plaintiffs are
all former employees of the Company or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleged that the Company and its subsidiaries (i) failed
to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay
overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully
converted certain earned wages.  The complaint in the Federal
Court Action sought, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel.

On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.  During a hearing on that motion, the United States
District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the matter.  After briefing regarding the jurisdiction
question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court
dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and
entered a judgment in the Company's favor.  Subsequently, on
July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-
C.  The complaint in the State Court Action alleged substantially
the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal
Court Action.

On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
Company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the Company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the Company's Chapter 11 case.  That
motion was granted on September 30, 2009.

On or about April 30, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs reached
an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been
asserted in the State Court Action.  Under the terms of the
settlement:

   a. Persons who were employed by the Company or its
      subsidiaries at any time between February 4, 2005, and
      January 28, 2009, will have an aggregate allowed $5 million
      general unsecured claim in the Company's bankruptcy.

   b. The Company would set aside approximately $1.3 million in
      an interest-bearing bank account.  After the deduction of
      fees, costs and other expenses associated with the
      settlement, the remaining proceeds would be distributed
      equally to all persons who were employed by the Company or
      its subsidiaries at any time between January 29, 2009 and
      the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement by
      the Bankruptcy Court.

On June 17, 2010, the State Court Action was removed to the
Bankruptcy Court by agreement of the parties.

On July 16, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement, and directed the parties to provide
notice to the current and former employees covered by the State
Court Action of their right to object to the settlement and/or be
excluded therefrom.  No objections to the settlement were filed.

On October 26, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted final approval
of the settlement.  The proceeds of the $1.3 million fund that was
set aside were distributed in full on December 10, 2010.

The Company says the expense related to this legal settlement was
accrued during the year ended December 31, 2010, and the related
liability is classified in liabilities subject to compromise in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Pursuant to the Joint Plan of Reorganization, among other things,
general unsecured creditors, including the employees subject to
the State Court Action, were to receive warrants referred to in
the Plan as the NPH Warrants.  On December 13, 2010, the Company
filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking that the Plan be
modified so that the Company would not need to distribute an NPH
Warrant worth approximately 13 cents to each of the employees.  On
January 21, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting
the relief sought in the Plan Modification Motion.


STEWART TITLE: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Stewart Title Guaranty Co. of "systematically cheating New
Jersey homeowners in mortgage refinancing transactions" by
overcharging for title insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in Hawthorne v. Stewart Title Guaranty
Company, Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 1382 in Case No.
33-av-00001 on April 5, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/06/Stewart.pdf#

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Posternock, Esq.
          BARRON & POSTERNOCK LLP
          400 North Church Street, Suite 250
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 642-6445
          E-mail: danp@barpostlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Elizabeth Fox, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6305
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  efox@bm.net

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          ANN MILLER, LLC
          The Benjamin Franklin
          834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-0468
          E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com

               - and -

          Daniel Harris, Esq.
          Anthony Valach, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS
          150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 960-1802
          E-mail: lawofficedh@yahoo.com


SUNL GROUP: CPSC Terminates ATV Action Plan
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the
termination of the All-Terrain Vehicle Action Plan for SunL Group,
Inc., of Irving, Texas. Effective immediately, it is unlawful for
any importer or distributor to import or distribute into commerce
any ATV subject to the SunL Group ATV Action Plan.

An ATV Action Plan is an agreement between CPSC and an ATV
manufacturer, importer or distributor that describes actions that
a company must carry out to promote ATV safety, including rider
training and dissemination of safety information.  An Action Plan
also includes age recommendations and policies governing
marketing, the sale of ATVs, and the monitoring of such sales.  It
is unlawful for an ATV manufacturer or distributor to import into
or distribute in commerce any new assembled or unassembled ATV,
unless the ATV is subject to a Commission-approved ATV Action
Plan.

SunL Group was an importer and distributor of motorsports
products, including gas and electric scooters, dirt bikes, ATVs
and go-karts.

SunL Group obtained approval for its ATV Action Plan on August 7,
2009.  Recently, CPSC staff obtained information that SunL Group
was no longer in operation and could not fulfill the terms of its
ATV Action Plan.  The Commission terminated the Action Plan on
March 29, 2011.

Now that SunL Group is out of business, the Firm can no longer
provide a remedy as part of its 2008 recall of SunL Group SLA90
Youth ATVs.

CPSC advises consumers to immediately stop using the SunL Group SL
A90 Youth ATV.  This youth ATV lacks front brakes, a manual fuel
shut-off, padding to cover the sharp edges on the handlebar
assembly, and is sold without a tire pressure gauge or adequate
flag pole bracket.

The risk with these ATVs is severe because these vehicles are
intended for children.  In many cases, youth riders are just
learning how to operate an ATV and may not have the experience
necessary to help them avoid hazards associated with this
product's defects.  The defects could lead to young drivers losing
control of the ATVs, which poses the risk of serious injuries or
death.

Consumers who own other models of SunL ATVs should determine if
the safety components identified above are present on their models
before using the ATVs.


TORO COMPANY: Recalls 3,700 Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company, Bloomington, Minn., voluntarily recalled about
3,700 Toro Z Master ZRT Mowers in the U.S. and 109 in Canada in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and
Health Canada.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Mowers with the optional deluxe seat have an operator presence
switch built into the seat that can activate the mower when the
operator vacates the seat, posing an injury hazard from the blade
to the operator and anyone in the vicinity of the mower.

Toro has received one report of a foot laceration.

The mowers are large commercial duty ZRT (zero radius turn) mowers
with 52" to 72" cutting decks.  They have light gray seats with an
adjustment knob in the front of the bottom of the seat.

         Model Numbers          Serial Numbers
         -------------          --------------
            74264            260000001-260999999
            74265            260000001-260999999
            74266            270000001-280999999
            74267            270000001-280999999
            74274            270000001-280999999
            74253            270000001-280999999
            74254            270000001-280999999

The mowers were manufactured in the United States and sold at Toro
dealers in the U.S. and Canada from September 2005 through January
2011 for prices ranging from $13,000 to 17,000.

A picture of the recalled Toro Z Master ZRT Mower is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11731.html

If your machine has the optional deluxe seat installed, which is
light gray with adjustment knob on the front, contact Toro to have
modification instructions sent to you.  Consumers can make that
modification themselves, or contact any Toro Dealer to have it
completed for them at no charge.  For additional information,
contact Toro at (866) 946-3109, in the U.S. and Canada, between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.Toro.com/


UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action stemming from Union National Financial
Corporation's planned merger with Donegal Financial Services
Corporation has been dismissed, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Union National entered into a proposed merger with Donegal
Financial Services Corporation(DFSC), the parent company of
Province Bank FSB (Province), and certain affiliated entities of
DFSC, pursuant to which Union National will merge with and into
DFSC.

On June 16, 2010, Union National and DFSC, an affiliate of Donegal
Group Inc. and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, became aware of a
filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010, in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania against Union National,
each of the Directors of Union National, DFSC and certain
affiliated entities of DFSC.  The complaint purported to be a
class action filed on behalf of the holders of Union National
common stock arising from certain alleged actions by Union
National and its Board of Directors in connection with the
proposed merger of Union National with and into DFSC.  On
October 1, 2010, Union National learned that the claim was
withdrawn and the case was dismissed.

Union National Financial Corporation, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Union National Community Bank, provides a full range of
financial services for both retail and business customers, and
offers insurance, retirement plan services and wealth management
services through Union National Advisors.  Union National
Community Bank has ten full-service offices in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.


VANCOUVER: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Tuition Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Steffenhagen, writing for the Vancouver Sun, reports that a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Vancouver families
who paid tuition fees so their children could attend summer school
between 2004 and 2006 has been certified by B.C. Supreme Court.

North Vancouver lawyer Jim Poyner, who began the action in 2009 on
behalf of Sarah and Ali Agha Riazi, said he now intends to file
similar applications for class-action certifications in 26 other
B.C. school districts.

Mr. Poyner began the action after former education minister
Shirley Bond declared in 2007 that fees for summer school were
illegal and ordered boards of education to return all such fees
charged that year.  In court, Mr. Poyner argued that if the fees
were illegal in 2007, they were also illegal between 2004 and
2006.

"There are literally thousands of people who have paid fees that
they shouldn't have had to pay," Mr. Poyner said in an interview
today, adding that he expects the cost for Vancouver will be
between $8 and $11 million.

A spokesman for the Vancouver school district was not immediately
available for comment.

The Riazis had a child in Grade 9 at Lord Byng secondary school in
Vancouver in 2003-04.  They were told that their child, identified
only as KR, needed to repeat science and English at summer school
in order to pass.  Those courses cost $274 in total -- money the
family wants returned.


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Sludge
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit involving Volkswagen and Audi vehicles could mean money
for you.

The lawsuit claims the engines were prone to have oil deposits and
sludge which weakened performance and could cause damage.

This suit affects owners of the 1997-2004 Audi A4 and the 1998-
2004 Volkswagen Passat.

Claims have to be submitted by June 27.

It could mean reimbursement if you made the repair already, and
could also provide cash back for oil changes and discounts going
forward.


WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court May Rule Against Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yeh, writing for OneNewsNow California, reports that an
attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute is doubtful the
Supreme Court will rule against Walmart in a class-action suit.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier heard arguments on whether Walmart
employees may bring a class-action against the company.  Justices
on the nine-panel court, comprised of a conservative majority,
seemed likely to derail the lawsuit accusing the world's largest
company of sex-discrimination.

The decade-old lawsuit accuses Walmart of favoring male employees
over female employees in salary and in promotions, including 0.5
to 1.6 million women who could be represented in the suit.

Kevin Snider, chief counsel with the Pacific Justice Institute,
says apart from the merits of the case, he believes that the high
court will halt the lawsuit.

"If they go by prior precedence, they will probably rule in
Walmart's favor," says Mr. Snider.  "But as to the issue of a
class-action, you have to have the class be similarly situated;
and in this instance, the fact that they're women is not enough of
a similarity.  When you have an employment situation, you are
going to have numerous variables -- and courts simply don't like
that."

Mr. Snider explains that the high court's decision on the case
could make it more difficult for future class-action claims
against large companies.

"The concern is that if you loosen the rules on class action, you
could open the floodgates and courts turn into public policy
forums; and that's not the appropriate role of the courts," the
chief counsel says.

Although some believe the nation's highest court is considering
whether Walmart is guilty of sex-discrimination, the case under
consideration is simply about whether the class action against the
retailer should proceed.


                            *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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  * * *