CAR_Public/110420.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 78

                             Headlines

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE: Sued for Restraint of Trade
ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Military Faces Class Action Threat Over Abuses
AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Class Action Needs New Lead Plaintiff
BURLINGTON COAT: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement to June 27

CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Landfill Gas Leak Class Action Hits Budget
CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Use of False Credit-Card Documentation
CHINA ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action
CISCO SYSTEMS: Senior Execs Sued for Violations of Exchange Act
CLARK HOLDINGS: Settles 2009 Multi-Media Suit for $50,000

COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Circuit Revives Stock-Option Backdating Suit
GENWORTH FIN'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims Denied
HEALTH NET: Accused of Losing Policyholders' Medical Records
IMPERIAL METALS: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement

KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Design Defects of Locks
KRAFT FOODS: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action Over 401(K) Plan
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Court Denies Appeal of Taylor Suit Dismissal
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Missouri Court Dismisses 'Wiles' Suit
MERRY MAIDS: Sued in California Over Labor Law Violations

MISTRAS GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Quiroz-Ballard Settlement
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tickets
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Illegal Toll Collection
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
OPENTABLE INC: Sued for Placing Expiry Dates on Gift Certificates

PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
XM SATELLITE: Merlin Agrees to Class Action Settlement




                             *********

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE: Sued for Restraint of Trade
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Kamakahi, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01781 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), is brought on
behalf of all women who sold human egg donor services directly to
a member of the Defendant Class during the 4 years prior to the
filing date of the Complaint.  The Defendant Class consists of all
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology -- SART -- Clinics
and all AR Egg (human eggs for assisted fertility and reproductive
procedures) agencies (other than those who purchased donor
services in Indiana) that were signatories to an agreement to
abide by the Maximum Prices Rules, and that paid for donor
services during the Class Period.

Plaintiff Kamakahi asserts that defendants had engaged in a
horizontal price fixing agreement, which constitute a conspiracy
in restraint of trade that is a "per se" violation of the Sherman
Act.

Plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi sold donor services in this District
during the Class Period.  Defendant American Society for
Reproductive Medicine -- ASRM -- is an organization "devoted to
advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive medicine."

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          FINKELSTE1N THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street. Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: mrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
          Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          E-mail: mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyfaucher.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyfaucher.com


ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities
of Artificial Life, Inc. during the period from May 5, 2010 to
April 6, 2011 and is seeking to recover investors' damages from
violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Artificial Life class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Jonathan
Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

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

On April 13, 2010, the Company engaged KPMG to be its accountant.
When conducting the audit for FY 2010, KPMG disagreed with the
Company over the Company's accounting treatment of reserves for
account receivables and revenue recognition, preventing KPMG from
issuing an unqualified opinion.  The Company refused to alter the
accounting treatment of these entries, and dismissed KPMG on
April 6, 2011.  On April 7, 2011, the Company's stock price fell
over 25%, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 14, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at jhorne@rosenlegal.com/

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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

Contact Information:

          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


AUSTRALIA: Military Faces Class Action Threat Over Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that Australia's scandal-hit defense
force faced the threat of a class action lawsuit after advocates
for an ex-recruit who claims he was beaten and raped warned
"hundreds" more cases could emerge.

Police are investigating the allegations of the man, who was just
15 when he joined HMAS Leeuwin in the 1970s and says he endured
beatings and assaults that saw him honorably discharged after less
than a year.

Fellow sailors forced the victim, now in his 50s, to run a
gauntlet of rubber hoses and pillowcases filled with boots and
sexually abused him with a mop handle, he claims.

The Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia, which is
supporting the ex-recruit, says at least 10 other former
servicemen have filed complaints of sexual, physical and
psychological abuse from the 1970s and 80s since he came forward.

And the recent scandal involving a male cadet filming and
broadcasting himself having sex with an unsuspecting female
colleague at Australia's elite military college, ADFA, could
potentially trigger "hundreds" more complaints.

"Somebody has to take responsibility for what happened here.
These guys have served their country," said the association's
chief Barry Heffernan on April 16, warning that a mass lawsuit
could be on the cards.

"We will absolutely pursue a class action through the courts if
appropriate and if more ex-servicemen come forward," he told The
Australian newspaper.

"The association is not going to back off."

Canberra ordered a sweeping review of military culture at ADFA,
the Australian Defence Force Academy, after the female cadet took
her story to the media this month, prompting a wave of misconduct
and gay-hate complaints.

ADFA's head, Bruce Kafer, was stood aside and Defence Minister
Stephen Smith appointed a human rights commissioner to review the
treatment of women at the college, also flagging greater frontline
roles for females.

Australia's military has gained an unwanted reputation for having
a drinking and sexist culture, underscored in a recent 400-page
report about incidents on the supply ship HMAS Success in 2009.

The report examined allegations of a "predatory culture" and
drunken misconduct, including claims that sailors kept a list
known as "The Ledger" which put dollar values on sexual conquests
with female colleagues.


AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Class Action Needs New Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
Selma Milovanovic, writing for The Age, reports that a trouble-
plagued class action over the 2003 alpine bushfires has hit
another hurdle after a Switzerland-based businessman refused to
become the lead plaintiff in the case.

Robert Arnold, whose companies used to lease the Mount Buffalo
Chalet from the state government, was tipped to replace a
Melbourne doctor in whose name law firm Oldham Naidoo had issued
the class action without his permission.

But the Supreme Court heard on April 15 that Mr. Arnold wanted
nothing more to do with the case.

Justice Jack Forrest, who reserved his decision, said the two
options now available to him were to dismiss the class action or
advertise for potential alternative plaintiffs in local papers
before deciding what to do with the case.

The government is being sued for allegedly failing to adequately
backburn, allowing the fire to spread to private property.  It
wants the case thrown out.

Peter Riordan, SC, for the government, said "this case should be
put out of its misery", as eight years after the fires there was
no chance anyone else would be interested in continuing with the
class action.

"At most you would be dealing with somebody who after the [six-
year] limitation period decides they now wish to take action,"
Mr. Riordan said.  "They ought not to be taking advantage of the
wrongful conduct of Oldham Naidoo to our detriment."

Oldham Naidoo Lawyers also launched Victoria's largest class
action, over the Black Saturday fires, in a survivor's name
without his permission.  The law firm is no longer involved in
that case.


BURLINGTON COAT: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement to June 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will consider for final approval on June 27, 2011, a settlement of
a class action lawsuit filed by May Vang, according to Burlington
Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc.'s April 14, 2011, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others
similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on September 17, 2009, and was
amended and refiled on November 16, 2009, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California -- Western Division.
The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former, and future employees in the United States and the
State of California for the relevant statutory time period.  The
amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned
hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure
to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California
Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by
statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims,
certification of a class with respect to California law claims,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil
penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-
judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees.  On March 7,
2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California -- Western Division granted preliminary approval to a
settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay class
members an immaterial amount in settlement of claims on a class
basis.  The court rescheduled a hearing for final approval on
June 27, 2011.


CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Landfill Gas Leak Class Action Hits Budget
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Randall, writing for The Cranbourne Leader, reports that
defending the Stevensons Rd landfill gas leak class action has
left a $1.4 million black hole in Casey Council's budget.

Council's mid-year budget review forecasts larger-than-expected
legal estimates for the class action involving Brookland Greens
residents over the 2008 methane leaks.

Settlement proceedings started last month.  If approved on
April 29, the settlement will cost council $13.5 million.

Further legal action against third parties aimed at recouping some
of the settlement has also contributed to the increase.

Site-management costs in the wake of remediation works at the tip
have jumped and the council is facing extra costs for clean up
requirements, stipulated by the EPA's pollution abatement notice.

With the budget about $1.486 million in the red, the council has
kept two projects on the backburner.

A $200,000 street tree replacement project was put on hold to fund
drainage and turf replacement works at Casey Fields because it
could not be funded.

A plan to build toilets at Banjo Patterson Park in Lynbrook, worth
$100,000, was also put on hold.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Use of False Credit-Card Documentation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Capital One Bank and the Goldman & Warshaw law firm use "false
information and documentation" in credit-card collections.

A copy of the Complaint in Fratz v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,
et al., Case No. (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Collect.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Carol B. McCullough, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC
          530 West Street Road, Suite 201
          Warminster, PA 18974
          Telephone: (215) 957-6411


CHINA ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. provided an update on the class action
lawsuit the firm filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of China Electric Motor, Inc. in the period from
Jan. 29, 2010 to March 30, 2011, to recover damages for violations
of federal securities laws.

To join the China Electric Motor class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

Since the filing of first-case by the Rosen Law Firm, China
Electric Motor announced on April 11, 2011 that it is now the
subject of a formal nonpublic SEC investigation into whether the
Company had violated the federal securities laws.  The
announcement revealed that the Company received a letter from the
NASDAQ indicating that the Company was not in compliance with
NASDAQ rules because the Company had failed to, among other
things, timely file its annual report with the SEC.

"We believe the latest announcement of a formal SEC investigation
corroborates the securities fraud claims alleged in our class
action seeking monetary relief for shareholders," said Laurence
Rosen.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/

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

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


CISCO SYSTEMS: Senior Execs Sued for Violations of Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Ziolkowski and James Ziolkowski, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01782 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), is a federal
class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cisco
between Feb. 3, 2010, and Feb. 9, 2011, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Cisco designs, manufactures, and sells Internet protocol
based networking and other products related to the communications
and information technology industry and provides services related
to their use worldwide.  Defendant Cisco maintains its corporate
headquarters in San Jose, California.

Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse certain of the Company's
senior executive officers and directors, including the Company's
Chairman of the Board and CEO John T. Chambers, EVP and CFO Frank
Calderoni, EVP of Worldwide Operations Robert Lloyd, and CEO of
Cisco UK & Ireland Phil Smith, of disseminating materially false
information with respect to Cisco's financial condition and
performance, and failing to correct any previously issued
misleading or untrue statements about the Company.

This conduct, the plaintiffs allege, operated as a fraud or deceit
on purchasers of Cisco's common stock.  As alleged, the scheme:
(i) deceived the investing public regarding Cisco's business,
operations and management and the intrinsic value of Cisco's
common stock; (ii) allowed the individual defendants and certain
Company insiders to collectively sell over 7.0 million shares of
their personally-held Cisco common stock for proceeds in excess of
$175 million; and (iii) caused plaintiffs and members of the Class
to purchase Cisco common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          100 Perm Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          E-mail: debbie@bemardmgross.com


CLARK HOLDINGS: Settles 2009 Multi-Media Suit for $50,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Clark Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries have settled for $50,000
a class action lawsuit filed by Multi-Media International in New
Jersey, according to the Company's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 1, 2011.

On July 10, 2009, Multi-Media International filed a complaint
against Clark Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, Clark Distribution
Systems, Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc., Clark Worldwide
Transportation, Inc. and Evergreen Express Lines, seeking class
action status in the United States District Court for the District
of  New Jersey by alleging, among other things, (i) common law
fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
conversion and unjust enrichment, (ii) violation of N.J. Stat.
Section 56:8-2 and (iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing,
relating to alleged excessive fuel surcharges by the Subsidiaries.
The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002 through
June 25, 2009.  On behalf of the punitive class plaintiff seeks to
recover the alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged
improper calculation of fuel charges by defendants and impose
punitive damages and attorney's fees.  The complaint did not
specify an amount of damages; however a prior complaint seeking
similar relief on behalf of the same class, which was withdrawn,
sought compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million and
punitive damages in the amount of $30 million.

On June 18, 2010 the U.S. Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a ruling in the Multi-Media International case that
substantially narrowed the case.  The Court granted CGI's motion
to dismiss the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim.  With regard
to the class action allegations, CGI's motion to disqualify MMI
and its lawyer from representing the class was rendered moot when
MMI withdrew its class allegations and filed a motion to convert
the case into an individual claim by MMI against CGI.  The Court
then granted MMI's motion to file the amended complaint and
proceed without the class action or the NJ Consumer Fraud
allegations.  As a result of these actions, CGI's potential
liability was substantially reduced.  In December 2010, the
Company settled this litigation for $50,000.  Although the
Company's management continued to believe that the remaining
allegations in the lawsuit were without merit, the settlement was
deemed to be an amount significantly less that management expected
the Company would spend to defend itself in continued litigation.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia A. Rieve, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01786 (N.D.
Calif. April 12, 2011), alleges failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to reimburse employees for required
expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code; and unfair
competition in violation of the California Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200 et seq.

Coventry Health Care, Inc., is a diversified national managed
healthcare company which operates health plans, insurance
companies, network rental and workers' compensation services
companies.

Plaintiff Julia A. Rieve has been employed by defendant in
California as a "Registered Nurse (RN) Field Case Manager" since
April 2007.  RN Field Case Managers, plaintiff avers, perform day-
to-day routine clerical work in the management of medical
conditions of injured workers or chronically ill patients on the
production side of defendant's business.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla,CA 92037
          Telephone: (858)551-1223
          Web Site: http://www.bam1awca.com/


ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Circuit Revives Stock-Option Backdating Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 14 revived a class
action against Ernst & Young, finding that the accounting firm may
have ignored years of fraud by client Broadcom and contributed to
a $2.2 billion stock-option backdating scheme.

Broadcom, a semiconductor company, paid a $12 million civil
penalty to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that
it improperly accounted for $2.2 billion in income from 1998 to
2005, according to the ruling.  Several of the company's
executives now face civil and criminal charges.

A class of plaintiffs composed of the New Mexico State Investment
Council and several union pension funds claimed in a Los Angeles
District Court that Ernst & Young enabled Broadcom's crimes by
ignoring red flags and signing off on obviously fraudulent
financial statements that caused Broadcom's stock price to be
artificially inflated.

Describe in the ruling as "akin to betting on a horse race after
the horse has already crossed the finish line," in a typical
backdating scheme, a company's directors will monitor the price of
the company's stock and award options when the share is at its
lowest, thereby allowing stock owners to make the largest possible
profit.  While not illegal in itself, if the company fails to
properly record the backdated options, then its reported net
income becomes overstated and could potentially deceive the market
and investors.

According to the ruling, "with revenues in excess of $2.5 billion
in 2006, [Broadcom] fraudulently overstated its net earnings, and
understated its compensation expense, by more than $2.2 billion
between 2000 and 2006 due to improper accounting of backdated
stock options."

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real dismissed the case against Ernst &
Young in 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that
the accounting firm knew it had engaged in wrongdoing.

A three-judge panel of 9th Circuit in Pasadena reversed that
ruling unanimously on April 14, sending the complaint back to the
District Court.  Their decision was authored by U.S. District
Judge Jack Zouhary, sitting by designation from Northern District
of Ohio.

The panel found numerous examples in the plaintiffs' complaint
that Ernst & Young (EY), at the very least, "knew Broadcom's
internal controls were weak, and ignored other red flags."

"EY, as Broadcom's auditor from 1998 until being fired in 2008,
repeatedly offered unqualified audit opinions despite an awareness
of large, undocumented stock option grants, and despite having
suspicions of Broadcom's option grant procedures multiple times
over the years, from the questionable $700 million May 2000 grant,
to the three separate 2001 grants when one of the two compensation
committee members was deceased, to assisting Broadcom in 2003 with
corrective actions to 'prevent and detect any future instances of
improper accounting for equity awards," Judge Zouhary wrote for
the court.  "During this entire time, EY failed to change course.
While Broadcom's bad acts certainly may have played a role in the
overall fraud, this court's purpose at this stage . . . is simply
to test whether the complaint provides a sufficient inference of
scienter [knowledge of wrongdoing] for the case to proceed against
EY.  It does."

A copy of the Opinion in New Mexico State Investment Council, et
al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, et al., No. 09-55632 (9th Cir.), is
available at http://is.gd/AJP53y

New Mexico State Investment Council, the lead plaintiff-appellant,
was represented by:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
          Stephen W. Tountas, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
                  jfonti@labaton.com
                  stountas@labaton.com

Ernst & Young, LLP, the defendant-appellee, was represented by:

          Robert B. Hubbel, Esq.
          Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
          Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com
             amircheff@gibsondunn.com


GENWORTH FIN'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, United States District Judge Leonard D. Wexler
denied a motion to dismiss federal claims brought against Genworth
Financial Wealth Management, Inc. (formerly Genworth Financial
Asset Management), Genworth Financial, Inc. (collectively
"Genworth") and an executive officer, on behalf of investors in
Genworth BJ Group Services Portfolios (the "Brinker Portfolios")
between Dec. 22, 2003 and Dec. 22, 2009.  A motion to dismiss
state law claims was granted.

Plaintiffs' Complaint charges that Genworth and Gurinder S.
Ahluwalia knowingly, recklessly and/or with intent to deceive,
disseminated to investors materially misleading representations
regarding the management of the Brinker Portfolios and Genworth's
"exclusive" management agreement with Mr. Brinker.  The Complaint
alleges that at times during the Class Period nearly 65% of the
Brinker Portfolios was invested in funds not recommended by
Mr. Brinker but rather in funds that paid Defendants higher
administrative and service fees.

The parties have nine months to conduct discovery.  A Class and
Class Period have not yet been certified.

If you have information regarding the Brinker Portfolios, and/or
invested in Genworth's BJ Group Services Portfolios during the
Class Period and want to obtain a copy of the Complaint or more
information regarding the Action, please contact:

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514.
          Telephone: (800) 585-4658
                     (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (888) 593-4771
                     (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


HEALTH NET: Accused of Losing Policyholders' Medical Records
------------------------------------------------------------
Callie Green, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01797 (N.D.
Calif. April 13, 2011), asserts violation of the Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act (Calif. Civil Code Section 56.101).
Plaintiff Green accuses the health insurer of losing her
confidential medical information, private financial data, and
social security number.

According to Ms. Green, confidential medical information, private
financial data, and social security numbers of approximately
1.9 million Health Net policyholders are now unaccounted for.
Upon information and belief, defendants did not encrypt their
policyholders' private and confidential information, which makes
it viewable by an unauthorized individual with commonly available
computer software.

Plaintiff Callie Green is a 29-year-old San Francisco resident.
She is married and the mother of two children.  Ms. Green has been
a Health Net policyholder since 2005.  Defendant Health Net is a
health insurer whose corporate headquarters and principal place of
business is 21650 Oxnard St., in Woodland Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  awolf@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI
          456 Montgomery St., Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Pkwy, Suite 503
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811
          E-mail: Kevin@mcinerneylaw.net


IMPERIAL METALS: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Metals Corporation, American Bullion Minerals Ltd. and
Red Chris Development Company Ltd. report they have entered into a
settlement agreement in connection with the outstanding class
action by two ABML minority shareholders, brought on behalf of all
ABML minority shareholders, against RCDC, ABML and a former
director of ABML.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Class Action will be
settled through the plan of arrangement announced on Feb. 4, 2011,
as amended, in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement, subject
to approval by the Court.  Under the original terms of the
Arrangement, each holder of minority shares of ABML (other than
holders exercising dissent rights) was to be offered $2.25 cash
for every share held.  The amended Arrangement, in conjunction
with the Settlement Agreement provides that the Offer Price will
be increased to $2.45 per share less legal fees, taxes, and
disbursements to counsel for the minority shareholders in the
Class Action.  The Legal Fees will be such amount as the Supreme
Court of British Columbia may approve, but not to exceed $0.45 per
share.

Counsel for the minority shareholders in the Class Action has
claimed against ABML and the minority shares for the Legal Fees in
an amount equal to thirty seven and one-third percent of the value
of ABML's assets, the minority shares, or purchase monies for that
asset or shares, and has asserted a solicitor's lien against both
ABML's assets and the minority shares securing that amount.  ABML
has disputed this claim.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, the claim for Legal Fees and
a solicitor's lien will be released upon completion of the
Arrangement and payment of Court approved Legal Fees, but not
otherwise. The Settlement Agreement forms part of an interim order
of the Court pronounced on April 13, 2011 in the Class Action.
The Order sets out certain notice and other provisions affecting
Class Action members in the context of the Settlement Agreement
and the amended Arrangement.  The parties will seek an interim
order of the Court in connection with the amended Arrangement on
April 26, 2011.  The Board of Directors of ABML has scheduled an
extraordinary meeting of ABML shareholders' meeting for June 6,
2011 to vote on the amended Arrangement.


KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Design Defects of Locks
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Journal, reports that a
Reserve locksmith has filed a class action against the
manufacturers of push button door locks which allegedly can be
rendered ineffective with a commercially available magnet.

Danny's Locksmith Inc. and Danny Siebenkittel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Kaba
Ilco Corp., Kaba Corp., Kaba Finance Corp., Kaba Benzing America,
Kaba U.S. Holdings Ltd., Kaba Delaware, Kaba AG and Kaba Holdings
AG on April 6 in federal court in New Orleans.

According to the complaint, the push button door locks contain
design defects that make them susceptible to opening by using
various magnets.  This renders the locks ineffective and unfit to
perform the safety function, for which they were designed, the
lawsuit states.

"As a result of a flaw in their design, the Locks can be opened by
affixing a magnet to the outside of the Locks, which manipulates
the internal mechanism and allows the Locks to be opened with ease
and without inputting the necessary combination," state court
documents.

The proposed class action will include all persons and entities,
in the locksmith trade, who purchased any of the defective locks.

Causes of action filed against the defendants include negligence,
strict product liability, failure to warn, breach of warranty,
violation of state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, deceit, fraud or misrepresentation and
redhibition.

The lawsuit is asking the court for an award of compensatory
damages, restitution or disgorgement, refund or reduction of the
purchase price, interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Camilo K. Salas III of Salas &
Co. in New Orleans. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-00731


KRAFT FOODS: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action Over 401(K) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that in a 2-1
split, the United States Court of Appeals or the Seventh Circuit
voted to revive a class action by Kraft employees alleging that
mismanagement of the company's 401(k) plan caused them to miss out
on $83.7 million in investment gains between 2000 and 2007.

At its peak, Kraft's 401(k) plan included 55,000 participants and
$5.4 billion in assets.  Participants were able to direct their
contributions into one or more of the nine mutual-fund options
offered.  Two of these, company-stock funds, became the subject of
the suit.

The complaint, filed in 2006, claimed that plan managers had
incurred "excessive expense and generate insufficient returns."

The plan's unitized structure invested most assets in stocks, but
included a 5 percent cash buffer that was designed to allow quick
cash transactions.  Ultimately, however, it created "investment
drag," preventing the fund from reaching its full potential when
stocks went up.

In addition, the plan's policy of deducting stock transaction
costs from the overall value of the fund, rather than allocating
them to the individual who initiated the transactions, decreased
margins by encouraging participants to trade with little
discretion.  This "transactional drag" allegedly cost an average
of $145 per participant per year.

An Illinois federal judge certified the class but granted summary
judgment for the defendants.

The 7th Circuit reversed, finding that managers failed to act on
plaintiffs' proposed changes to the plan.  Since there was a
genuine issue of material fact as to the prudence of the decision,
the court's majority felt summary judgment was a misstep.

"Given the state of the record, we think the best course is to
reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment . . . and
remand for further consideration," U.S. District Judge Lynn
Judge Adelman wrote for the majority.  Judge Adelman sat on the
panel by designation from the Milwaukee-based Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

To succeed in their suit, plaintiffs must still demonstrate that
indecisiveness caused loss.

"This might be difficult to do, in that it is impossible to know
what would have happened had the fiduciaries made a decision,"
Judge Adelman wrote.

Judge Richard Cudahy dissented.  "What the trustees did here is
well within their discretion, both from an administrative and an
investment standpoint, and should not become the subject of a
federal lawsuit," he wrote.

Cash buffers, which Cudahy said are included in 90 percent of
401(k) plans, are a legitimate means of preserving investment.  He
also called the sharing of trading costs among all participants
"perfectly appropriat[e]."

"This is an implausible class action based on nitpicking with
respect to perfectly legitimate practices of the fiduciaries.  I
would therefore affirm the excellent district court opinion
throughout, including summary judgment matters the majority
chooses to reverse," Judge Cudahy wrote.

A copy of the decision in George, et al. v. Kraft Foods Global,
Incorporated, et al., No. 10-1469 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/741FFOAK.pdf


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Court Denies Appeal of Taylor Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed in
Texas has been denied, according to LocatePLUS Holdings
Corporation's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

A class action suit, Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access
Company, et al., was brought in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00018.  The matter is
styled as a suit brought by the plaintiff class against a group of
defendant companies, including the Company, under the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721 et seq.  The
defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted by
the Court.  The plaintiff class filed an appeal of the dismissal
of the case, which was denied.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Missouri Court Dismisses 'Wiles' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Driver Privacy
Protection Act has been dismissed, according to LocatePLUS
Holdings Corporation's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

A class action suit filed by Sam Wiles, Carol Watkins, Jackson
Wills and Sarah Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is pending in the US District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, C.A. No. 09-4164-CV-C-NKL.  The
matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the plaintiff
class against the Company, alleging a violation of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721, et. seq., and is one
of several similar actions brought by the class against a number
of companies in the same industry as the Company.  The defendants
filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the Court.
The plaintiff class has not yet filed an appeal of the dismissal.


MERRY MAIDS: Sued in California Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Merry Maids of Fresno and
Servicemaster cheated workers of overtime, paid less than minimum
wage, and violated other labor laws, workers say in a Superior
Court class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Cruz, et al. v. Merry Maids of Fresno,
et al., Case No. 11-01156 (Calif. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Susan K. Hatmaker, Esq.
          Jared Hague, Esq.
          SUTTON HATMAKER LAW CORPORATION
          6715 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 214
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 449-1888
          E-mail: brett@suttonhatmaker.com
                  susan@suttonhatmaker.com
                  jared@suttonhatmaker.com


MISTRAS GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Quiroz-Ballard Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of two class action suits alleging violations of California labor
and employment law, according to the Company's April 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in two related purported class action
lawsuits in California, based upon alleged violations of
California labor and employment law: Quiroz v. Mistras Group,
Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California
(Case No. CV09-7146 PSG), filed in September 2009, and Ballard v.
Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California (Case No. 2:10-cv-03186 (PSG)), filed in March 2010.
Both of these cases are purported class action lawsuits brought on
behalf of existing and former California employees of the Company
and its subsidiaries for violation of various labor and employment
laws, primarily for failure to pay wages timely and for having
defective wage statements, as well as other claims, and is seeking
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act.  The
Ballard case was filed shortly after the plaintiff's request to
certify the Quiroz case as a class action suit was denied by the
same attorney representing the plaintiff in the Quiroz case.

The Company and counsel for the plaintiffs in both the Quiroz and
Ballard cases have agreed upon a settlement, which has received
preliminary court approval.  The Company has reserved
approximately $0.3 million in connection with this settlement, the
charges for which were taken in prior quarters of fiscal 2011.
This reserve represents the Company's estimate of its total
potential liability related to the settlement of these cases, net
of insurance reimbursements.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New York City "amassed
millions of dollars in illegal revenue" by ticketing legally
double-parked commercial vehicles, and citing them for more
expensive "traffic lane violations," the New York Trucking &
Delivery Association says in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint NYTDA, Inc. v. The City of New York, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-01836 (E.D.N.Y.) (Garaufis, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/NYPark.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian H. Lowenfeld, Esq.
          350 Central Park West Suite 13-C
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (917) 375-9996
          E-mail: jlowenfeld@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Esq.
          JACOBSEN LAW OFFICES LLC
          12 Orchard Lane
          Wallingford, PA 19086
          Telephone: (610) 566-7930
          E-mail: jacobsenjaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joanne Zack, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0201
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq.
          O'KEEFE & SHER, P.C.
          15019 Kutztown Road
          Kutztown, PA 19530
          Telephone: (610) 683-0771
          E-mail: jokade@aol.com

               - and -

          Julia Lowenfeld, Esq.
          1706 Sheepshead Bay Road
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 648-4888
          E-mail: julia@lowenfeldlaw.com


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Illegal Toll Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that just in time for Tax Day, a
federal class action claims the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority illegally collects taxes, in the form of tolls on the
Dulles Toll Road, which are more than needed for upkeep of the
road.

A copy of the Complaint in Corr, et al. v. Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority, Case No. 11-cv-00389 (E.D. Va.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Taxes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Cynkar, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          106-A South Columbus Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (202) 587-5063
          E-mail: rcynkar@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher I. Kachouroff, Esq.
          DOMINION LAW CENTER, P.C.
          13649 Office Place, Suite 101
          Woodbridge, VA 22192
          Telephone: (703) 365-9900
          E-mail ck1@trialjustice.net

               - and -

          Patrick M. Sweeney, Esq.
          3358 John Tree Hill Road
          Powhatan, VA 23139
          Telephone: (804) 794-5740
          E-mail: pmmcsweeney@yahoo.com


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder is pending,
according to the Company's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

A purported class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an
alleged shareholder of Novelos, on behalf of himself and all
others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock in the period between December 14, 2009, and February 24,
2010, against Novelos and its president and chief executive
officer, Harry S. Palmin.  On October 1, 2010, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald) and appointed
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On October 22, 2010, an amended
complaint was filed.  The amended complaint claims that the
Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in
connection with alleged disclosures related to the Phase 3
clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small cell lung cancer.  On
December 6, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss and on March 3, 2011, the Company
filed its response to their opposition.  The Company's motion to
dismiss remains pending.  The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the
allegations.


OPENTABLE INC: Sued for Placing Expiry Dates on Gift Certificates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Farrell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01785 (N.D. Calif.
April 12, 2011), says OpenTable, in attempting to make sales of
its gift certificates to the companies that redeem the
certificates -- merchants -- knowingly and intentionally places
expiration dates on its gift certificates in violation of
California Civil Code Section 1749.5 -- California Gift
Certificate Law -- the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility
and Disclosure Act -- CARD Act -- and the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act -- EFTA.

Plaintiff William Farrell, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts,
purchased a gift certificate from OpenTable, an Internet seller
of gift certificates.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 N. LaSalle Ave., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654


PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 14 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of Puda Coal, Inc. during the period from November 13,
2009 to April 8, 2011, inclusive, seeking to recover damages for
violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Puda Coal class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against Puda Coal and its officers and directors for
misrepresenting the Company's ownership interest of the Company's
operating subsidiary Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co. Ltd, and related
unauthorized transactions involving Shanxi Coal and Puda Coal's
Chairman Ming Zhao.  According to the Complaint, on April 8, 2001
a stock market analyst, issued a report claiming that Ming Zhao
had secretly engaged in related party transactions in order to
"steal" half of Puda Coal's ownership interest in Shanxi Coal and
pledged the other half of the Company's ownership of Shanxi Coal
to Chinese private equity investors.

In reaction to the adverse information in the Report, the price of
Puda Coal stock fell 34% on April 8, 2010.  On April 11, 2011 (the
following trading day), trading in Puda Coal's stock was halted
before market open. Later that day, Puda Coal issued an
announcement admitting that "evidence supports the allegations
that there were transfers by Mr. Zhao in subsidiary ownership that
were inconsistent with the disclosure made by the Company in its
public securities filings."  As a result of this adverse
information the Complaint alleges that investors have been
damaged.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 13, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

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


XM SATELLITE: Merlin Agrees to Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Music Industry News Network reports that the global independent
music agency Merlin has agreed to a settlement of a long-running
dispute with XM Satellite Radio over the Pioneer Inno recordable
radio receiver and other similar recording devices.

Merlin has fought on for the independent community's due share of
monies owed by XM Satellite Radio to rights holders, after claims
were settled with the four major record labels between 2007 and
2008.

The out-of-court agreement closes a longstanding class action
lawsuit.  While achieving a settlement of its own members' claims,
Merlin's decision to participate in the class action was pivotal
to the achievement of the $3.6 million settlement for the entire
independent record sector.

As a result of the class action settlement, Merlin members and all
other independent record labels that had their sound recordings
transmitted by XM Satellite Radio between March 30, 2006 and
Dec. 6, 2010 have the opportunity to participate in the
settlement.

Said Charles Caldas, Merlin CEO: "This is an important settlement,
not just for Merlin's members, but also, I am pleased to say, for
the independent community at large.  This announcement underlines
the value that Merlin has brought to its members by creating a
body that ensures that they, and not just the major labels, have
the opportunity to benefit from settlements such as this one."

With its members' market share in the US alone reported at around
10%, Merlin provides an invaluable solution for digital music
services looking to include independent labels.  This settlement
is testament to both Merlin's diligence in protecting its members'
rights and the value of its member label's repertoire.  Labels
such as Epitaph, Rough Trade, Merge, Warp Records, Yep Roc/Red
Eye, NaV0ve, Naxos, Tommy Boy, One Little Indian, Kontor New
Media, Beggars Group, [PIAS] Entertainment Group,!K7, Domino and
Koch/E1 are all members of Merlin.  Their artists include Vampire
Weekend, Arcade Fire, Dizzee Rascal, Neko Case, Spoon, Grizzly
Bear, Bright Eyes, Carla Bruni, The National, Tom Waits, DJ
Khaled, Dorrough, TiV'sto, Scooter and many many more.


                            *********

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  * * *