CAR_Public/110503.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 86

                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Arkansas
ANVIL MINING: Class Action Proceedings to Move Forward
BENJAMIN MOORE: Faces Class Action Over Natura Interior Paint
BEST BUY: Discrimination Suit in California Remains Stayed
BEST BUY: Faces Another Shareholder Class Suit in Minnesota

BP EXPLORATION: Oystermen File Class Action Over Oil Spill
CHINA SECURITY: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Rightmark
CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Actions
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over LIBOR-Based Derivatives
C.R. BARD: Faces Hernia Product-Related Suits in U.S. and Canada

C.R. BARD: Defends Vena Cava Filter-Related Suit in California
C.R. BARD: Re-hearing of Appeal in "St. Francis" Suit Pending
DENNIS M. NOLAN: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Ads
DJARRAGUN COLLEGE: Former Employees Mull Suit Over Dismissal
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion for Class Cert. in MDL Proceeding Pending

FUWEI FILMS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement Agreement
GIRARDI & KEESE: Misappropriation Charges Are Not Time Barred
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Android Data Location Collection
HQ SUSTAINABLE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits in Early Stage

REBECCA ENGLE: Court Awards $30-Mil. to Defrauded Investors
ROSUKRENERGO: Former Ukrainian PM Files RICO Class Action
SONY COMPUTER: Sued for Loss of Service and Breach of Security
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES:  To Seek OK of MOU Resolving Merger Lawsuits
STARBUCKS CORP: Need Not Disclose Applicants' Pot Convictions

SUSSEX TITLE: Plaintiff's Lawyers in Suit Can Comment to Press
SYNGENTA AG: PR Exec Denies Intimidation Campaign Allegations
TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for June 21
UBS FINANCIAL: Sued for Illegally Using "Hedge Clauses"
UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Native American Class Action Settlement




                             *********

ACXIOM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC disclosed that a class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arkansas on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired stock of Acxiom Corporation during the period between
October 27, 2010, through and including March 30, 2011.

The complaint charges Acxiom and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically the
complaint alleges: (i) that the Company was experiencing a
significant decline in its international operations; (ii) that the
Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its international operations; and (iii) that, as a
result, defendants' statements regarding Acxiom's financial
performance and expected earnings were misleading.

The Company announced on March 30, 2011 that its CEO and President
had resigned and that its CFO would step down in the second
quarter of 2011.  Additionally, Acxiom forecasted a weak fiscal
fourth quarter of $0.18 to $0.22 per share and revenue between
$295 million and 299 million compared to analysts forecasts of
adjusted earnings of $0.24 per share and 303 million in revenue.
On this news, shares of the Company fell over 22% to close at
around $13.50 a share.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: eitan@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  June 27, 2011 is the
deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents institutions and
other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation.
The firm's expertise also includes general corporate work, private
securities offerings, and securities arbitration.


ANVIL MINING: Class Action Proceedings to Move Forward
------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Hogg, writing for Reuters, reports that a Canadian court
rejected on April 28 an attempt to block a case against Toronto-
listed Anvil Mining over its alleged involvement in a massacre in
the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2004.

Congo-focused Anvil, which has been producing copper in the
southern Congolese province of Katanga since 2002, is accused of
providing logistical support to the Congolese army during a
massacre in which 70 people were killed.

The miner, with offices in both Australia and Quebec, has denied
the charge.

Last year, a civil class action was filed on behalf of the victims
by the Canadian Association Against Impunity.

The Superior Court of Quebec rejected Anvil's request that the
case be heard either in Australia or Congo, and allowed
proceedings to move to the next stage, court documents seen by
Reuters showed.

"Everything indicates that if the court were to refuse to accept
the application [for a class action] there would be no other
possibility for the victims' civil claim to be heard," Judge
Benoit Emery said in the court documents.

The company, which is due to begin production at its newest copper
mine in Katanga later this year, argued that the court did not
have jurisdiction to hear the case.

A spokesman for Anvil was not immediately available for comment on
the court's decision.

Rights groups welcomed the decision, although Andie Lamb of Global
Witness said it was still possible that the class action would not
reach court.

"This is the first hurdle we've got over, we're very excited about
it, but the court must still decide if there are grounds for a
class action," she said, adding that a decision is likely in June.

Anvil Mining had already been found not guilty in 2007 by a
Congolese military court over its role in the killings, which took
place in the village of Kilwa, as Congolese armed forces attempted
to put down a rebellion.

Congo is one of the most resource rich countries in the world but
remains unstable after years of conflict.  Its armed forces are
notoriously ill disciplined and have frequently been implicated in
human rights abuses.


BENJAMIN MOORE: Faces Class Action Over Natura Interior Paint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that Benjamin
Moore touts its Natura interior paint as "virtually odorless," but
a federal class action says the paint stinks -- for months.  The
class claims that Moore issued a deficient "Product Replacement"
notice to retailers that did not admit the extent of the problem.

The paint, which Moore markets for "parents of young children and
others who are particularly concerned about environmental issues,"
not only emits a foul, persistent odor, but fails to dry in 30
minutes as promised, and remains "wet and sticky for months,"
according to the 35-page complaint.

Moore advertises the water-based paint "as a zero-VOC ('Volatile
Organic Compound') paint that is 'virtually odorless,'" the
complaint states.

Moore claims the paint is "inspired by nature," that it is "the
greenest paint available," that it "dries to the touch in 30
minutes," and that, as it bears the company's "green promise"
logo, it "meet(s) and often exceed(s) the strictest industry
standards."

Moore advertises the paint on its Web site as "the best paint for
your little one's room."  But lead plaintiff Marlene Sway says
Moore has received a slew of consumer complaints about the potent
smell of Natura paints.

Citing alleged complaints to Moore and "online postings about the
problems with the product," Ms. Sway says one consumer wrote, "We
painted our entire house almost a year ago, and it is still out
gassing.  The first few months it smelled like rotting fish, now
it is less strong and has a chemical smell to it.  To this day, I
still exchange the air in the house with strong fans every morning
for several hours.  I can't get Benjamin Moore to answer my
calls."

Another customer wrote: "I am a 9 month pregnant mom and also
thought this would be the safe option for the nursery.  The smell
is much, much stronger than Aura, which I've previously used and
loved.  Natura is not 'virtually odorless' at all, but smells
exactly like regular paint.  Since having the room painted we've
had to keep its windows open . . . and a towel under the door, but
whole house still smells like wet paint.  It's nauseating.  I'm
panicked because we have nowhere else to put the baby or his
things."

Ms. Sway says Moore sent a "Product Replacement" notice to
retailers in 2010, and that "Although defendant knew at the time
that the product did not perform as advertised, defendant did not
inform its retail outlets of that fact.  Instead, the 'Product
Replacement' notice stated: '"Since the introduction of Natura two
years ago, we have made additional changes to further improve its
performance.  To this [sic], Benjamin Moore & Co. will replace the
older version products, skus and batches.'  The notice went on to
instruct retail outlets to check for certain batch codes, and to
contact defendant to make arrangements to have those batches
'exchanged.'  Defendant concluded the notice by stating: 'While I
know this is an inconvenience, this is an opportunity to replace
your older stock with new.'  Because defendant crafted the notice
to omit any reference to any problem with the product, a retailer
receiving the notice may or may not have accepted defendant's
invitation to replace the older, defective product with
replacement product.  Furthermore, defendant did not seek any
information from its retailers about customers who had already
purchased the product, nor did defendant instruct its retailers to
make any effort to contact those customers to inform them of the
problem or to remedy the harm those customers were suffering as a
result of the problem.  Defendant did not issue a consumer recall
of the product nor did defendant take any steps at all to notify
consumers of the problems with the product."

Ms. Sway says Moore's notice to retailers did not identify all of
the defective batches, and that "there were additional batches of
defective Product that such retailers were not allowed to replace.
Thus, even retailers who replaced the product that was identified
in the Product Replacement notice continued selling defective
product to consumers, and defendant failed to ensure that the
product was not still being sold to unsuspecting consumers."

Ms. Sway says that had she and the class known that Natura "would
render the rooms in which the product was used virtually
uninhabitable," they never would have bought it.

She seeks an injunction, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains, and class damages for consumer fraud, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violations of the
business law.

A copy of the Complaint in Sway v. Benjamin Moore & Co., Case No.
11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 11481 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
April 25, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/28/Paint.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl Beckwith, Esq.
          BECKWITH & WOLF, LLP
          1 Closter Commons #181
          Closter, NJ 07624
          Telephone: (201) 338-2833
          E-mail: ccbeckwith@gmail.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          Howard Hirsch, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          1627 Irving Street
          San Francisco, CA  94122
          Telephone: (415) 759-4111
          E-mail: esomers@lexlawgroup.com
                  hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Judith S. Scolnick, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  jscolnick@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com


BEST BUY: Discrimination Suit in California Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in California over alleged
discriminatory policies and practices remains stayed, according to
Best Buy Co., Inc.'s April 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
February 26, 2011.

In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  This federal court action alleges that the Company
discriminates against women and minority individuals on the basis
of gender, race, color and/or national origin in its stores with
respect to its employment policies and practices.  The action
seeks an end to alleged discriminatory policies and practices, an
award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive
relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.
The plaintiffs have filed a class certification motion which the
Company has opposed.  All proceedings have been stayed pending a
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., a gender discrimination class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the action seek damages, including interest,
equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they
incurred in the lawsuits.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit, and it
intends to defend the action vigorously.  Based on the Company's
assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the action, their
respective procedural litigation history, including the status of
class certification, and the degree to which the Company intends
to defend itself in these matters, the Company is unable to
provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of
these claims may impact its future consolidated financial position
or results of operations.


BEST BUY: Faces Another Shareholder Class Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., is facing another purported class action
lawsuit in Minnesota commenced by shareholder Rene LeBlanc,
according to the Company's April 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
February 26, 2011.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press
releases and other statements relating to its fiscal 2011 earnings
guidance that had been made available to the public.
Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court.

The plaintiffs in the actions seek damages, including interest,
equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they
incurred in the lawsuits.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit, and it
intends to defend the action vigorously.  Based on the Company's
assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the actions,
their respective procedural litigation history and the degree to
which the Company intends to defend itself in these matters, the
Company is unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the
final resolution of these claims may impact its future
consolidated financial position or results of operations.


BP EXPLORATION: Oystermen File Class Action Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that oystermen
say in a class action that BP, the oil-spill defendants and
Louisiana destroyed their oyster beds by diverting fresh water
into the marshes during the oil spill, in an attempt to keep oil
and other pollutants out.

"Since the oil spill began, unprecedented amounts of raw crude
oil, natural gas, and other toxic pollutants have encroached on
and contaminated the Gulf of Mexico and the ecologically sensitive
shorelines, beaches, shores, marshes, harbors, estuaries, bayous,
and bays," the class says in its complaint in Plaquemines Parish
Court.

"In order to combat the spreading oil, millions of gallons of
chemical dispersants were sprayed over the Gulf of Mexico and the
coastal zones. . . . (T)he environmental effects of using the
chemical dispersants in great magnitude and at depths was never
tested, nor were all the dangers known. . . .

"By May 13, 2010, the State of Louisiana began a diversion
strategy which consisted of diverting fresh water from the
Mississippi River into nearby marshes and bays, i.e. the coastal
zones, to stem the encroaching oil, natural gas, and chemical
dispersants' attack on Louisiana's shoreline.  That month, the
State of Louisiana ordered that the Bonnet Carre Spillway be
opened and allow the flow of fresh water into Lake Pontchartrain
and Lake Borgne to combat oil, dispersants, and other pollutants
that were being reported in Chandeleur Sound.

"The State of Louisiana also ordered the diversion canal gates
opened at the Davis Pond Diversion in St. Charles Parish; the
Caernarvon Diversion and Violet Siphon in St. Bernard Parish; and
the Bayou Lamoque Diversion, West Port a la Hache Diversion, Naomi
Siphon and Whites Ditch Siphon in Plaquemines Parish.

"The Caernarvon and Davis Pond diversions alone released more than
34,550 cubic feet of fresh water per second into the coastal bays
and estuaries where hundreds of public oyster reefs and private
oyster leases are located.

"The State of Louisiana's strategy to combat the amount of oil,
dispersants, and other pollutants that entered the coastal zones
where oysters grow resulted in the influx of freshwater which
killed and/or damaged thousands of acres of private and public
oyster beds because water salinity levels plummeted to levels that
oysters cannot survive.

"In essence, the oysters were under attack from both sides with
the oil, dispersants, and other pollutants coming from one side,
and fresh water coming from the other.

"Recent tests in Barataria Bay and Breton Sound have found that
roughly 40%-70% of the oysters had died as a result of either oil,
dispersants, or other contaminates and/or the diversion of fresh
water.

"The damage caused to the oysters by the oil, natural gas,
chemical dispersants, and fresh water has not ceased.

"According to environmental experts, the use of these chemical
dispersants have only exacerbated the environmental effects of the
oil spill by simply spreading the oil through the water column and
sinking it to the sea floor, where it can continue to cause
environmental damage to the coastal wetlands, estuaries, and
marine ecosystems for years to come.

"Recent reports have indicated oil and chemical dispersants have
continued to form into massive underwater plumes that will
continue to threaten the Louisiana coastline, further damaging the
coastal zones of Louisiana and destroying the habitats where fish,
shellfish and crustaceans breed, spawn and mature."

The oysterers seek class damages, with interest, for negligence.

A copy of the Complaint in Adams v. The State of Louisiana, et
al., Case No. 58-683 (La. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/28/Oysters.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. D'Amico, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK J. D'AMICO, JR.
          4731 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 525-7272


CHINA SECURITY: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Rightmark
------------------------------------------------------------
China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., is facing
purported class action lawsuits in connection with its merger with
Rightmark Holdings Limited, according to the Company's April 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and the members of its board of directors are named as
defendants in purported class action lawsuits brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by several stockholders: Dziak, Levine,
Smith and O'Conner on March 15, 2011, March 16, 2011, March 17,
2011 and March 18, 2011, respectively.  The Stockholder Actions
generally allege that the Company and all of its directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger that the Company
entered into with Rightmark Holdings Limited.  The Stockholder
Actions seek, among other things: to declare that the contemplated
Merger Transaction is unfair, unjust and inequitable, enjoin the
Company from taking any steps necessary to accomplish or implement
the proposed Merger Transaction, and compensate the plaintiff and
the members of the class for all losses and damages suffered and
to be suffered by them as a result of the Merger Transaction.

The Company believes the Stockholder Actions are without merit and
plan to defend against them vigorously.  At this stage of the
proceedings, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation or whether it will have a material effect on its
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust laws were filed on various dates in 2003 against
several motor vehicle manufacturers, including Chrysler Group
LLC's subsidiary Chrysler Canada, as well as the National
Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association.  Some complaints were filed in federal courts in
various states and others were filed in state courts.  The
complaints allege that the defendants conspired to prevent the
sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in Canada in
order to maintain new car prices at artificially high levels in
the U.S.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and treble damages
on behalf of each person who bought or leased a new vehicle in the
U.S. since January 1, 2001.  The federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
and, in July 2009, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  Chrysler Canada remains a defendant
in four of the pending state court actions.  In addition, Chrysler
Canada is a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in September 2007 that claims
that a similar alleged conspiracy was preventing lower-cost U.S.
vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2011,
Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over LIBOR-Based Derivatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Credit Suisse, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and other major
banks traded "billions, if not trillions of dollars" of LIBOR-
Based derivatives at artificial and manipulated rates.

A copy of the Complaint in Laydon v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02824 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/28/Libor.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Coleman, Esq.
          Steve Jakubowski, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 444-1000
          E-mail: rcoleman@colemanlawfirm.com
                  sjakubowski@colemanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Doug M. Chalmers, Esq.
          DOUGLAS M. CHALMERS, PC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 606-8700

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey Horn, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com


C. R. BARD: Faces Hernia Product-Related Suits in U.S. and Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., is defending itself from class action lawsuits
filed in the United States and Canada with respect to its
Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products, according to the Company's April 25, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

As of April 21, 2011, approximately 1,870 federal and 1,635 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,620
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims").  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  Approximately 1,610 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010, and resulted in a judgment for the
company based on the jury's finding that the company was not
liable for the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was
completed in August 2010, and resulted in a judgment for the
plaintiff of $1.5 million.  The company expects additional trials
of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

While the company intends to vigorously defend the Hernia Product
Claims, it expects to participate in court-mandated settlement
conferences with respect to certain lawsuits pending in the
Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island.  In addition, the
company has recently engaged in discussions with various attorneys
managing significant numbers of Hernia Product Claims regarding
the potential resolution of such claims.  These discussions are
ongoing and the company may from time-to-time engage in similar
discussions with others in the future.  Where appropriate, the
company may enter into settlement arrangements with respect to
certain of these or other claims.  The company cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims will
not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Defends Vena Cava Filter-Related Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., is defending itself from a class action lawsuit
in California over plaintiffs' use of the Company's vena cava
filter products, according to C. R. Bard's April 25, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

As of April 21, 2011, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury.  The putative class action, which has
not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive
damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(iv) attorneys' fees.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Re-hearing of Appeal in "St. Francis" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A re-hearing of St. Francis Medical Center's appeal from the
dismissal of its class action lawsuit against C. R. Bard, Inc.,
alleging violation of antitrust laws remains pending, according to
the Company's April 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the Company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.  The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis
Medical Center as an additional named plaintiff.  The action was
re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.  In
September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for class
certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the Company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market and
that the Company sought to maintain market share by engaging in
conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.  St.
Francis seeks injunctive relief and presented an expert report
that calculates damages of up to approximately $320 million, a
figure that the Company believes is unsupported by the facts.  The
Company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.

In September 2009, the District Court granted the Company's
summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in
this action.  St. Francis appealed the Court's decision to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In August 2010, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District
Court.  In October 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted St. Francis's request for a re-hearing of its appeal.  The
re-hearing is pending.

The Company says it intends to defend this matter vigorously.  If,
however, St. Francis is ultimately successful, any damages awarded
under the federal antitrust laws will be subject to statutory
trebling and St. Francis's attorneys would be entitled to an award
of reasonable fees and costs.  At this time, it is not possible to
assess the likelihood of an adverse outcome or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential damages.  The
Company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


DENNIS M. NOLAN: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Ads
------------------------------------------------
Rodin Enterprises Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Law Offices of Dennis M. Nolan, P.C.  Case
No. 2011-CH-15645 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 27, 2011),
accuses the defendant of sending fax advertisements without the
recipient's prior express invitation or invitation, a practice
which is prohibited under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 USC Section 227.

Plaintiff Rodin Enterprises d/b/a Minuteman Press, is an Illinois
resident with its principal business located at 544B West Dundee
Road, in Wheeling, Illinois.  The Law Offices of Dennis M. Nolan
is an Illinois professional corporation with its principal place
of business located at 221 Railroad Avenue, Cook County, Illinois.

On November 8, 2010, the defendant faxed an advertisement to
plaintiff.  The plaintiff relates that it had not invited or given
permission to the defendant to send fax advertisements.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Chaban, Esq.
          Kristen E. Hengtgen, Esq.
          LEVIN GINSBURG
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60601-2800
          Telephone: (312) 368-0100
          E-mail: mchaban@lgattorneys.com
                  khengtgen@lgattorneys.com


DJARRAGUN COLLEGE: Former Employees Mull Suit Over Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Barry, writing for ABC News, reports that a former teacher
from Djarragun College, south of Cairns in far north Queensland,
says past employees may launch a class action for unfair
dismissal.

The State Government has asked police to investigate claims the
college falsely inflated enrolment figures to attract extra
funding.

Mathew Curtis is one of several former staff who have either
lodged or are considering unfair dismissal claims against the
school.

He says the college accused him of losing enrolments during his
time as head of senior school, and made him redundant.

However, he says enrolments remained steady during his tenure.

"It's almost a laughable matter that when you do such a good job
and you're closing the gap, the next thing people are being laid
off left, right and centre," he said.

"At the moment there are a series of outstanding unfair dismissal
cases and a class action is probably not out of the question at
the moment.

"It comes as a real shock that when you think you're doing your
best job probably in your working career in your life, you have
been given a letter of termination saying that you're actually
doing a fairly terrible job and you've lost all of these students,
which is incorrect, and you have to go."


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion for Class Cert. in MDL Proceeding Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs in a
multidistrict litigation in Missouri is pending, according to
Express Scripts Inc.'s April 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On April 29, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
transferred a number of cases to the Eastern District of Missouri
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  On
January 10, 2011, and February 9, 2011, respectively, all of the
claims asserted by plaintiffs in Central Laborers' Welfare Fund,
et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al (Case No.B04-1002240, United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois)
(filed September 27, 2004), and United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al v.
National Prescription Administrators, Inc., et al. (Case No.04-CV-
7472, United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York) (filed September 21, 2004) were dismissed with
prejudice, leaving only Local 153 (Local 153 Health Fund, et al.
v. Express Scripts Inc. and ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. (Case
No.B05-1004036, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri) (filed May 27, 2005)) as the purported class
representative with respect to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed against the Company on July 14, 2010.

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed its memorandum in
opposition to Local 153's motion for class certification.  On
March 3, 2011, in Fidelity Insurance Company, et al. v. Express
Scripts, Inc., et al., (Case No. 4:03-CV-1521-HEA, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (filed March
20, 2003), plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of some of its
claims.


FUWEI FILMS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd., a manufacturer and distributor
of high-quality BOPET plastic film located in China, on April 28
disclosed that the settlement agreement entered into with
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending in federal
district court in New York was approved by the Court at the
fairness hearing held on April 27, 2011.  The Action has been
dismissed with prejudice.

In September 2010, pursuant to a settlement agreement and subject
to the Court's approval, Plaintiffs agreed to accept US$2.15
million in full and final settlement of all claims they have or
may have against the Company, certain of its present and former
officers, directors, and shareholders, and the underwriters.
Fuwei Films agreed to contribute US$1.0 million towards the
settlement.

The Company's management believed that Plaintiffs' allegations
were without merit.  However, in recognition of the attendant
risks and costs of continued litigation, and the benefits of
resolving the same, the Board of Directors unanimously consented
to settle this case.

"We are pleased that the court finally approved the settlement
agreement, which we believe is in the best interests of the
Company and its shareholders." said Mr. Xiaoan He, Chairman and
CEO of Fuwei Films, "We look forward to closing this chapter and
focusing on creating value for the shareholders."

                        About Fuwei Films

Fuwei Films conducts its business through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.  Fuwei Shandong
develops, manufactures and distributes high-quality plastic films
using the biaxial oriented stretch technique, otherwise known as
BOPET film (biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate).
Fuwei's BOPET film is widely used to package food, medicine,
cosmetics, tobacco, and alcohol, as well as in the imaging,
electronics, and magnetic products industries.


GIRARDI & KEESE: Misappropriation Charges Are Not Time Barred
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Second District
ruled that charges of misappropriation of certain settlement funds
asserted by Luis Gutierrez under a purported class action against
Thomas V. Girardi, et al., are not time barred.

Mr. Gutierrez commenced the class suit on behalf of himself and
all other persons who were represented by the Girardi law firm.

Thomas V. Girardi and his law firm Girardi & Keese served as
counsel in a prior employee lawsuit against Lockheed Corporation,
et al., for exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace.

In the class lawsuit, Mr. Gutierrez alleges that G&K
misappropriated part of the settlement funds paid by the settling
Lockheed defendants, and asserts causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty and money had and received against G&K.

The trial court granted G&K's motion for summary judgment on
grounds that Mr. Gutierrez could not prove the elements of
causation and damages in both his causes of action because his
claims would have been barred by the statute of limitations had
the settling defendants asserted them.  Mr. Gutierrez appealed the
trial court ruling.  The appellate case is Luis Gutierrez, et al.
v. Thomas V. Girardi, et al., Case No. B226614 (Calif. App. Ct.).

The Appellate Court opines that the merits of the Lockheed Action
need not be decided in order to determine whether G&K's alleged
misappropriation of the settlement proceeds caused Mr. Gutierrez
damages.  G&K allegedly misappropriated the settlement proceeds
after the settlement agreements were executed.  At that point, as
to the settling defendants, the case was over.  The settling
defendants could no longer raise any defenses, including their
statute of limitations defense.

Therefore, if the misappropriation allegations against G&K are
true, G&K's conduct caused Mr. Gutierrez to incur damages
regardless of whether the settling defendants could have raised a
statute of limitations defense prior to settling the case, the
Appellate Court states.

The Appellate Court holds that the trial court's judgment was
based on the erroneous assumption that the settling defendants'
statute of limitations defense barred Mr. Gutierrez's claim
against G&K.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court reverses the trial court's
summary judgment order.  Mr. Gutierrez is awarded costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appellate Court's April 27, 2011 opinion, as
concurred by Justices Patti S. Kitching, Joan D. Klein and H.
Walter Croskey, is available at http://is.gd/5ULiahfrom
Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Sherri M. Okamoto, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports that Girardi has risen to prominence for its high-profile
class action litigation and record of multi-million dollar
judgments and settlements.  The firm represented residents of
Hinkley, a small community in San Bernardino County, in a lawsuit
against Pacific Gas & Electric depicted in the 2000 film Erin
Brockovich starring Julia Roberts.

The firm also garnered much publicity over its litigation on the
effects of the pesticide Dibromochlorpropane on Nicaraguan banana
plantation workers, but a district judge threw out its attempt to
enforce a Nicaraguan judgment in litigation over use of the
pesticide and last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
rebuked the firm for pursuing a frivolous effort to revive the
case.

                        Toxic Settlement

Girardi was also successful in securing some $131 million in
settlements from various parties on behalf of Luis Gutierrez and
several other employees of the Lockheed Corporation to resolve
claims that they had been injured by their exposure to toxic
chemicals in the workplace.  Three of the non-settling defendants
in this case, however, obtained summary judgment in their favor in
2002, on the basis that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.

In 2008, Mr. Gutierrez sued Girardi on behalf of himself and
others who had been represented by the firm in the toxic tort
case, asserting that the firm had misappropriated over $20 million
from the settlement fund.  West, however, found Gutierrez could
not prevail as a matter of law because he could not have prevailed
in the underlying case.

Writing for the appellate court, Justice Patti S. Kitching
disagreed, explaining "whether Gutierrez's claims against the
settling defendants [in the underlying case] would have been
barred by the statute of limitations is irrelevant to Gutierrez's
breach of fiduciary duty cause of action."

                          Timing Issue

Since the firm's alleged misconduct took place after the
settlement agreements were executed, she reasoned that any
misappropriations would have "caused Gutierrez to incur damages
regardless of whether the settling defendants could have raised a
statute of limitations defense prior to settling the case."

She emphasized that once the settling defendants chose to pay the
plaintiffs, "Gutierrez and the other plaintiff were entitled to
their rightful share of the settlement proceeds" even if their
claims against the settling defendants would have been barred by
the statute of limitations had the settling defendants asserted
them.

Adopting the position that the merits of Mr. Gutierrez's
underlying claims against the settling defendants had to be
adjudicated "would create a rule of law that would lead to absurd
and inequitable results," Justice Kitching said.

As an example, she suggested a hypothetical wherein a plaintiff
retains an attorney to represent him in an employment
discrimination action on a contingency basis, and after the
employer settles the case, the attorney absconds with the
settlement proceeds.

"[I]f the plaintiff sued the attorney, the attorney could raise
each of the employer's defenses to the plaintiff's settled claims
and, if the attorney prevailed in this trial within a trial, he
could keep the $100,000 with impunity," Justice Kitching said,
insisting:

"That is not, should not be, and never has been the law in this
state."

Presiding Justice Joan D. Klein and Justice H. Walter Croskey
joined Kitching in the opinion.

Robert W. Finnerty of Girardi represented the firm while Gutierrez
was represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem of Dion-Kindem & Crockett.

Dion-Kindem remarked on April 27 that his client was "gratified
that the Court of Appeal got it right" and "the rule of law that
was adopted is certainly consistent with existing law."

He said a new trial date is pending since the remittitur had not
yet been issued, and "we're looking forward to obtaining a true
and accurate accounting of Girardi's handling of the Lockheed
settlement fund."

A message left for Finnerty was not returned.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Android Data Location Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elinor Mills, writing for CNET News, reports that two Michigan
women are suing Google over location data collected by Android
devices, a week after Apple was named in a lawsuit citing privacy
violations with the iPhone logging similar data.

The $50 million lawsuit against Google seeks to stop Google from
selling phones with software that can track a user's location, the
Detroit News reported on April 27.

The lawsuit was filed on April 27 in U.S. District Court in
Detroit on behalf of plaintiffs Julie Brown and Kayla Molaski, who
are seeking class action status for the suit.  Their lawyer,
Steven Budaj, argues in the complaint that the tracking of Android
owners' location "puts users at serious risk of privacy invasions,
including stalking."

Google earlier acknowledged that it collects location information
-- including GPS current location, timestamps, nearby Wi-Fi
network addresses, and device IDs -- from Android devices but said
it was not traceable to a specific individual.  Users can disable
the GPS feature, but then they won't get as much function out of
maps and other location-based services.

Google representatives did not immediately respond to an e-mail
seeking comment on the lawsuit on April 28.

The lawsuit against Apple filed in Florida also seeks class action
status and accuses Apple of violating privacy laws, as well as the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by keeping a log of user locations
without offering users a way to disable that.

The matter first came to light when two researchers said they had
discovered that the iPhone collects and logs current and
historical location information without user permission or
warning, and stores it unencrypted on the device.

In addition to the lawsuits, the controversy has prompted
lawmakers to seek an FTC probe of the issue and questions from
attorneys general in Connecticut and Illinois.

After a week of silence, Apple finally spoke up about the matter,
explaining in an FAQ that it was collecting the data to get more
accurate location data for eventual use in a traffic database and
blamed a software bug for storing an excess amount of it on the
devices.

Mr. Budaj may be reached at:

          65 Cadillac Square
          2915 Cadillac Tower
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Tel: (313) 963-9330
          Fax: (313) 963-9185
          E-mail: web2mail@counsel.cc


HQ SUSTAINABLE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Business Journal reports that Seattle law firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP has filed a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
buyers of common stock of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries Inc.
who bought shares between May 11, 2009 and April 1, 2011.

The complaint says that HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries (AMEX:
HQS), which operates a fish-farming and processing enterprise in
China's Hainan Province, and some of its officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose facts about the
company's financial position, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint states: "(i) that a substantial
portion of the Company's revenues were overstated; (ii) that HQS'
financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with
U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were materially
false and misleading; (iii) that HQS was operating with material
deficiencies in its system of internal control over its financial
reporting; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company, its prospects and growth," according to a statement.
Potential plaintiffs can get more information on the suit on
Hagens Berman's Web site.

On April 13, HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries received a warning
from the New York Stock Exchange because its independent
nonexecutive director and chairman of the audit committee
resigned, a move that doesn't comply with the exchange's listing
requirements.  Audit Committee Chairman Andrew Intrater said he
quit because he lost his "faith in the management of the company
and the path it is charting."

Shares in HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries haven't traded since
April 1, when they closed at $2.78, down from a 2011 high of more
than $5.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matters in class action lawsuits seeking damages under the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act are at an early stage and discovery has
just begun, according to Radioshack Corporation's April 25, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2010, RadioShack received the first of four putative
class action lawsuits in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los
Angeles Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District
Court, Central District of California; Knutson v. RadioShack,
Federal District Court, Southern District of California; Grant v.
RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court), seeking damages under
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.  Plaintiffs claim that under one
section of the Act, retailers such as RadioShack are prohibited
from recording certain personal identification information
regarding their customers while processing credit card
transactions unless certain statutory exceptions are present.  The
Act states that any person who violates this section shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first
violation and $1,000 for each subsequent transaction.  In each
matter, plaintiffs allege that RadioShack violated the Act by
asking them for personal identification information, which
plaintiffs further allege that RadioShack recorded.

The Company says the matters are in an early stage and discovery
has just begun.  RadioShack is vigorously defending these matters,
but since no discovery has yet taken place, the Company is unable
to determine the likely outcome of these matters.


REBECCA ENGLE: Court Awards $30-Mil. to Defrauded Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 investors who claimed they were defrauded by two
Nebraska brokers were recently awarded $30 million by a judge in
federal court.

According to The Associated Press, the investors filed a class-
action lawsuit against Rebecca Engle and Brian Schuster in 2007
for allegedly selling them on risky investment opportunities.  The
news source reports that the $30-million judgment was against
Schuster and a number of his investment companies but does not
include Engle.

The news source reports that a number of the investors had made it
clear to Engle and Schuster, who reportedly worked together in
Nebraska city from 2000 to 2007, that they wanted their
investments to be secure and stable as they were approaching
retirement age.  However, they contended in the lawsuit that their
money was put into high-risk investments in Florida without their
being informed of the risks.

An attorney for the investors told the AP that while he was
pleased with the award, the decision "leaves the question of how
much of this we'll be able to collect."

Nebraska City is located on the eastern border of the state had
has a population of about 7,000.


ROSUKRENERGO: Former Ukrainian PM Files RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that in a RICO
and Torture Victims Act class action, former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko claims a gas trader dismantled Ukraine's
judicial system with help from President Victor Yanukovych,
"stripping away all remaining vestiges of an independent judiciary
and the rule of law" in the Ukraine.

Ms. Tymoshenko, a leader of the so-called Orange Revolution, sued
Dmytro Firtash and RosUkrEnergo under the Torture Victims
Protection Act, the Alien Torts Statute, and the federal RICO Act.
She seeks "to recover monetary damages and other relief arising
out of the defendants' concerted efforts to defraud the Ukrainian
people of their valuable natural resources, as well as their
political and human rights."

Mr. Firtash owns 45% of RosUkrEnergo (RUE) and a partner owns 5%;
the other half is owned by Gazprom, Russia's natural gas monopoly,
according to the federal complaint.

Ms. Tymoshenko, who was prime minister from 2007 to 2010, claims
"Firtash has admitted that he got his start in the gas trading
business with the assistance of Semion Mogilevich, the Russian
organized crime boss.  Firtash is also a close associate and
advisor to the current Ukrainian President, Victor Yanukovych."

Ms. Tymoshenko says her co-plaintiffs, John Does 1-10, were all
members of her administration, and that "They have all been
subjected to politically motivated investigations and selective
prosecutions by the current Ukrainian administration under the
leadership of President Victor Yanukovych.  The reason why their
names are not specifically listed as plaintiffs in this matter is
that, in some cases, they are incarcerated under conditions that
severely restrict their ability to communicate freely, and both
those who are incarcerated and those that are not, but are under
intense investigation, would likely be subjected to further
intimidation and persecution if their names were listed as
plaintiffs in this action."

Ms. Tymoshenko says that Mr. Firtash colluded with the Yanukovych
administration to seize $3.5 billion in resources by "stripping
away all remaining vestiges of an independent judiciary and the
rule of Law" in the Ukraine.

Mr. Yanukovych, accused of massive corruption throughout the
complaint, is not a defendant.  Up to 100 unnamed corporate and
individual co-conspirators are listed as defendants.

"For many years, RUE bought cheap gas from Russia and Turkmenistan
and had Gazprom deliver it to the Ukrainian border, where most of
the natural gas was sold at a favorable price to the state-owned
Ukrainian company, Naftogaz, and the rest to European customers at
global market prices," Ms. Tymoshenko says in her 29-page
complaint.

Ms. Tymoshenko says that on Jan. 19, 2008, when she was still
Ukraine's Prime Minister, she negotiated with Russian Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin to eliminate RUE as the broker of gas
transactions between Russia and the Ukraine, and agreed to have
the two countries trade directly with each other.

She says that Western countries celebrated the deal, which the
U.S. Embassy said would bring "transparency and accountability" to
Ukraine's gas trade.  But public and secret critics of the plan
signaled that it would have a violent fallout, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Tymoshenko says the deputy chairman of Ukraine's state-run oil
company received threatening phone calls from Kiev, warning him
that he would "do time" if he signed the agreement.

She says Mr. Firtash publicly denounced her agreement with Russia
as "criminal" and said that if anyone else had made it, "he would
have already been hanging from the streetlights."

Mr. Firtash opposed the deal at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce,
but the Ukrainian government was confident that it would win,
Ms. Tymoshenko says.  But she says everything changed when Mr.
Yanukovych became president in February 2010, financially backed
by Mr. Firtash.

Mr. Firtash immediately joined the Yanukovych administration's
inner circle; his associates were put in key positions, including
chief of staff, energy minister and security chief, and
Mr. Yanukovych replaced the entire management of the state-run gas
company Naftogaz, Ms. Tymoshenko says.

"Since the entire management team at Naftogaz now reported to the
Yanukovych administration, the two parties that were facing each
other in the Stockholm arbitration were now friends and allies,"
the complaint states.

By March 2010, Mr. Yanukovych's Naftogaz announced a "change of
position" and "admitted" that the seizure of RUE's natural gas was
illegal, Ms. Tymoshenko says.

"Upon information and belief, Naftogaz's 'change of position' was
due to the fundamental conflict of interests, collusion and
corrupt agreement between defendants Firtash/RUE and the
Yanukovych administration," the complaint states.

The Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal, lacking any opposition,
awarded RUE 12.1 billion cubic meters of gas.

"In order to understand the enormity of the transaction, it should
be noted that the 12.1 billion cubic meters of gas that Naftogaz
transferred to RUE following the Tribunal award represented
approximately 50 percent of the 25 billion cubic meters of gas
produced in Ukraine annually, and approximately one-sixth of
Naftogaz's total annual 'gas balance' of 75 billion cubic meters,
which includes the gas shipped by pipeline into Ukraine from
Russia and Turkmenistan," the complaint states.

Ms. Tymoshenko says the Yanukovych administration enacted a set of
"reforms" to make sure the Ukrainian courts would rubber-stamp the
Stockholm award.

"In July 2010, under the guise of 'Judicial Reform,' the
administration also granted the Supreme Council of Judges certain
powers not specifically enumerated or even mentioned in the
constitution, including the power to appoint the head judges of
all the courts, to control the assignment of cases and the
allocation of offices, computers and other resources, and to
remove judges within one month's period without hearing, the right
to defend against the charges, or other indicia of due process.

"Since the Yanukovych administration has the allegiance of at
least 16 of the 20 members on the Supreme Council of Judges,
through the increased powers granted to the Supreme Council, the
administration has virtual complete control over the hiring and
firing of judges, thus precluding the possibility of any
independent judiciary," the complaint states.

Ms. Tymoshenko says Mr. Yanukovych's courts arrested, jailed,
exiled and psychologically tortured his political opponents.  The
complaint names four high-ranking officials of her administration
who allegedly have been subjected to such persecution, including
Tymoshenko's minister of the economy, acting minister of defense,
Customs chief, and deputy Customs chief.

She seeks treble damages and punitive damages for the class.

Ms. Tymoshenko is represented by:

          Kenneth F. McCallion, Esq.
          MCCALLION & ASSOCIATES LLP
          100 Park Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 646-366-0880


SONY COMPUTER: Sued for Loss of Service and Breach of Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristopher Johns, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02603 (N.D. Calif. April 27, 2011), is filed on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased a Sony PlayStation
console and subscribed to the PlayStation Network or Qriocity
service and suffered loss of service and breach of security on or
about April 17 to 19, 2011.

The Complaint seeks to redress the defendant's breach of warranty,
negligent data security, violations of consumers' rights of
privacy, failure to protect those rights, and failure and on-going
refusal to timely inform consumers of unauthorized third party
access to their credit card account and other nonpublic and
private financial information.

The PlayStation Network's -- PSN -- security was breached between
April 17 and 19, 2011, exposing names, addresses, e-mail
addresses, birthdates, usernames, passwords, logins, security
questions and possibly credit card data belonging to approximately
77 million user accounts.

Defendant shut down PSN upon learning of the breach, but failed to
advise plaintiff or members of the Class until April 26, 2011.

Mr. Johns relates that subsequent to the compromise of private
consumer information and financial data, defendant unduly delayed
or failed to inform in a timely fashion the appropriate entities
and consumers whose data was compromised of their vulnerabilities
and exposure to credit card or other fraud such that consumers
could make an informed decision as to whether to change credit
card numbers, close the exposed accounts, check their credit
reports, or take other mitigating actions.  Defendant has also
failed to provide regular credit reports and credit monitoring at
their own expense to those whose private data was exposed and left
vulnerable.  This, plaintiff alleges, has caused, and continues to
cause, millions of consumers fear, apprehension, and damages
including extra time, effort, and costs for credit monitoring, and
extra time, effort, and costs associated with replacing cards and
account numbers, and burden, and is harming both consumers' and
merchants' ability to protect themselves from such fraud.

Defendant had not also informed plaintiff or all other users of
PlayStation consoles and PSN service nationwide regarding the
reason for suspension of service or the fact of the security
breach for a week after the security breach.

Mr. Johns is a citizen of the state of Alabama and maintains a
residence in Birmingham.  He first purchased a SONY PlayStation3
console, the PSN service and multiplayer games for use on the PSN
service in or around 2009.  Around April 17 to 18, 2011, plaintiff
noticed he had lost access to PSN, not knowing of the security
breach and loss of his personal and credit card data stored on
SONY's servers.

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its executive offices and principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Foster City, California.
Defendant Sony Network Entertainment International LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company with its executive offices and
principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira P. Rothken, Esq.
          Jared R. Smith, Esq.
          ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
          3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280
          Novato, CA 94949
          Telephone: (415) 924-4250
          E-mail: ira@techfirm.net
                  jared@techfirm.net

               - and -

          John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER& RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          E-mail: jparker@kcrlegal.com
                  wkershaw@kcrlegal.com
                  bcutter@kcrlegal.com
                  stalley@kcrlegal.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES:  To Seek OK of MOU Resolving Merger Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. entered into, and will seek approval of, a
memorandum of understanding to settle lawsuits filed over its
proposed acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's April 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Various purported class action lawsuits have been filed by
stockholders of AirTran Holdings, Inc. that challenge the proposed
acquisition of AirTran by the Company.

On September 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated AirTran
stockholders in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro,
AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Arne G.
Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of
directors, the Company, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ("Merger
Sub").  The Leonelli complaint generally alleges that the
consideration to be received by AirTran's stockholders in the
merger is unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and
directors named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement through an unfair and flawed
process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms
contained in the merger agreement.  The Leonelli complaint further
alleges that AirTran, the Company, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders.  The Leonelli
complaint seeks injunctive relief: (i) enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger unless AirTran adopts and implements
a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for
AirTran's stockholders and discloses all material information to
AirTran's stockholders, (ii) directing the individual AirTran
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of AirTran's
stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented,
the merger agreement, including the deal protection devices that
may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv) awarding
plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and (v) granting such
other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On the same day, Frank Frohman filed a second purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the same court and against the
same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as the Leonelli complaint.
The allegations in the Frohman complaint, as well as the relief
requested, are generally the same as those set forth in the
Leonelli complaint.  The Frohman complaint was consolidated into
the Leonelli complaint on December 9, 2010.  On December 14, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting the same
claims and requesting the same relief against the same defendants
(other than Mr. Haak).  The Leonelli consolidated complaint also
included new allegations, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty
claim, that the individual AirTran defendants caused the Company
to file a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC on
November 19, 2010, which omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the merger.  AirTran and the individual
AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Leonelli
consolidated complaint on January 7, 2011, which was joined by the
Company and Merger Sub on the same day.

Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits have also
been filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in
and for Orange County, Florida.  Harry Hoffner filed a purported
class action lawsuit on September 30, 2010, against the same
defendants (other than Mr. Haak and Merger Sub) as in the Leonelli
complaint.  This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert
Debardelan on October 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on
October 12, 2010, and Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010,
against the same defendants plus Merger Sub.  The allegations in
these actions, as well as the relief requested, are also generally
the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint.  On
November 15, 2010, these actions were consolidated into one action
styled In re AirTran Shareholder Litigation.  On December 2, 2010,
the consolidated Florida action was stayed in its entirety pending
resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli complaint.

On October 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed another purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County against the same
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint.
The allegations set forth in the Church complaint, as well as the
relief requested, were generally the same as those set forth in
the Leonelli complaint with one addition.  The Church complaint
additionally alleged, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty
claim, that the individual AirTran defendants (other than Mr.
Haak) received greater benefits under the merger agreement than
other AirTran stockholders.  Mr. Church voluntarily dismissed his
lawsuit on November 30, 2010, but on December 2, 2010, he re-filed
a new lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.  The Church federal
complaint makes the same claims and seeks the same relief as his
original lawsuit, but includes new claims for alleged violations
of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly providing misleading and incomplete information in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on November 19,
2010.  Specifically, the Church federal complaint alleges that the
disclosures contained in the Form S-4 Registration Statement omit
or misrepresent material information regarding the process of
approving the merger agreement, the merger consideration, and the
intrinsic value of AirTran.  AirTran and the individual AirTran
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Church federal complaint
on December 22, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed another purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit again in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against the same
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint.
The allegations and claims set forth in the Nesbit lawsuit, as
well as the relief requested, were generally the same as those set
forth in the Church federal complaint.  On February 9, 2011,
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Nesbit lawsuit in deference
to the earlier filed Leonelli and Church complaints.  On March 31,
2011, the assigned magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Defendants' Motion be granted and the Nesbit
action stayed.  Nesbit filed a Motion to Reconsider the Report and
Recommendation on April 11, 2011.  Both the Report and
Recommendation and Motion to Reconsider remain pending.

While the Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without
merit, the parties to the Leonelli consolidated complaint and the
Church federal complaint entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding on January 26, 2011, to settle those lawsuits.  The
settlement provides for the inclusion of additional disclosures
with respect to various aspects of the merger in the proxy
statement/prospectus sent to AirTran stockholders soliciting
approval of the merger.  In addition, it provides for the payment
of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to court
approval.  The MOU further provides that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement which will provide, among other
things, for the conditional certification of a settlement class.
The MOU and stipulation of settlement are subject to various
conditions, including court approval following notice to AirTran
stockholders, completion of certain discovery, and consummation of
the merger.  If the settlement is finally approved, it will
resolve and release on behalf of the entire class of AirTran
stockholders, all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, among other claims.


STARBUCKS CORP: Need Not Disclose Applicants' Pot Convictions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that Starbucks
should not have to identify job applicants convicted on marijuana
charges to defend itself from a class-action lawsuit that accused
the coffee giant of illegally asking about such convictions, a
California appeals court ruled.

Three plaintiffs sought $26 million in a class-action lawsuit that
accused Starbucks of violating California law by asking applicants
if they had juvenile marijuana convictions.

The California Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that
plaintiffs lacked standing because they were never actually
convicted on such charges.  "We declined to turn the legislation
into a 'veritable financial bonanza for litigants like plaintiffs
who had no fear of stigmatizing marijuana convictions,'" Justice
Raymond Ikola wrote for a three-judge panel, quoting the court's
earlier ruling.

But Orange County Court Judge Gail Andler then ruled that
applicants who did have juvenile marijuana convictions could file
an amended complaint.

She also said the plaintiffs' attorneys could conduct discovery to
find a suitable representative of the class, and ordered Starbucks
to search through its files of applicants to find such a
candidate.

On March 22, the Santa Ana-based Fourth District California Court
of Appeals overturned that order.

"By providing for the disclosure of job applicants with minor
marijuana convictions, the discovery order ironically violates the
very marijuana reform legislation the class action purports to
enforce," Judge Ikola wrote.

"We fail to understand how destroying applicants' statutory
privacy rights can serve to protect them," he added.

A copy of the Opinion in Starbucks Corporation v. The Superior
Court of Orange County, et al. No. G043650 (Calif. App. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G043650.PDF

Starbucks Corporation was represented by:

          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Jessica M. Weisel, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com
                  cconway@akingump.com
                  gknopp@akingump.com
                  jweisel@akingump.com


SUSSEX TITLE: Plaintiff's Lawyers in Suit Can Comment to Press
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for The Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press, reports that the plaintiffs' lawyers in a suit
against a title company accused in a mortgage fraud scheme were
absolutely privileged to provide copies of court documents and
comments to the press, Maryland's highest court ruled on April 22
in Norman v. Borison.

Stephen Norman, owner of Sussex Title LLC, alleged that two
attorneys made defamatory comments to a Baltimore Sun reporter who
was covering the filing of a proposed class-action lawsuit against
multiple companies, including Sussex, regarding their involvement
in a widespread mortgage scam.

The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed an intermediate appellate
court's decision and rejected Mr. Norman's contentions, holding
that the lawyers' actions were taken to promote public awareness
of their proposed class-action claim and thus amounted to
protected statements made during the course of a proceeding.

Norman also claimed the lawyers defamed him by providing a copy of
the complaint to the reporter and publishing it on the Internet.

As a general rule, allegedly defamatory statements contained in
court filings or made during judicial proceedings are shielded
from liability.  In this case, Norman unsuccessfully argued that
this litigation privilege did not apply because the attorneys
provided a copy of the complaint to the reporter before it was
filed with the court and published an incomplete, redacted version
online.

Moreover, the complaints posted on the Internet "were not redacted
so extensively as to render them fundamentally distinct from the
public documents that were filed with the . . . court.  It appears
[the attorneys] omitted mostly exhibits, rather than substantive
averments, from their internet republication," the court ruled.

The court's recognition of the "judicially-cognizable purpose" of
notifying potential class members of ongoing litigation in which
they may have had a stake was particularly important in the
court's consideration of the "verbal sound bites" the lawyers gave
the reporter.  These included, among others, statements that the
defendants in the mortgage suit were "bad people" who "come at you
like vultures."

"The two news articles . . . provided readers (i.e., possible
class members) with details about how the mortgage rescue scam
worked, when it took place, who was involved potentially, and who
was targeted likely.

"[B]ut for the fact that the mortgage rescue scam suit was
striving to become a class action, our conclusion might have been
different.  The . . . adage retains vitality -- lawyers who try
their cases in the media do so at some peril," the court said.

The court declined to consider the lawyers' defense and
intermediate appellate court's ruling that Mr. Norman lacked
standing to sue because the allegedly defamatory statements
concerned his business and not him personally.  Mr. Norman
countered that the statements about his company were indeed "of
and concerning" him personally because as the owner of a small,
unique company, there is effectively no legal distinction between
himself and his business.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-
of-the-court brief in the case, arguing that expansion of the "of
the concerning" test as proposed by the plaintiff would threaten
media organizations' ability to report on businesses and their
activities free of allegations that statements imputed misconduct
to and, therefore, defamed individuals within the company.  The
brief also urged the court to find that attorneys do not face
liability when they provide comments and copies of court documents
to reporters.

"Oftentimes the only practical way the news media learn of
[official government actions that affect the public interest] and
obtain the documents and comments needed to effectively report on
them is through information supplied by the people involved in
them, including attorneys," the brief said.


SYNGENTA AG: PR Exec Denies Intimidation Campaign Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
public relations executive Jayne Thompson said that an attempt to
characterize a litigation support strategy for Madison County
class action defendant Syngenta as a campaign of intimidation is
"ridiculous" and "untrue."

Ms. Thompson, founder and CEO of Jayne Thompson & Associates in
Chicago, also said in an interview on April 28 that a portion of
its 2005 proposal that Circuit Judge William Mudge quoted in an
order is "specifically excluded" from its contract with Syngenta.

Judge Mudge ordered the proposal be turned over to plaintiff
attorney Stephen Tillery, who represents Holiday Shores Sanitary
District in a class action against Syngenta involving the
herbicide atrazine.

In his April 20 order, Judge Mudge characterized the proposal as
one that castigates the Madison County judicial system in a
negative light.

Among other things, he wrote that the proposal mentions adopting
themes such as, "Another Madison County class action case going
amuck" and "Now Madison County is going after family farmers."

Ms. Thompson said the firm's strategy, as outlined in a formal
agreement with Syngenta, does not include using those themes as
action items.

There also is no reference in the proposal that indicates the firm
would proactively communicate disparaging remarks about the
Madison County judiciary, she said.

Plaintiffs' counsel has been in possession of its consulting
services agreement "for some time," she said.

She said Mr. Tillery had not yet seen its 13-page proposal when he
made a statement on the day the order was entered that Judge
Mudge's ruling "cuts to the heart of the campaign of
intimidation."

She said that "any fair reading" of the proposal would conclude
that it was not intended to intimidate.  She also said that she
and her client "certainly did not" contemplate intimidation.

In the proposal, Mr. Tillery is named as an "aggressive and
proactive class action trial lawyer" who would engage in a
"publicity assault" in the atrazine cases.

Ms. Thompson said Mr. Tillery was named in the proposal because he
had filed the lawsuit and because he had "a great deal of
visibility as a proactive class action lawyer."

She said there are many reasons why a company facing major
litigation would want to employ a public relations firm, including
providing an audience with an accurate description of what is
happening in the courtroom and providing accurate reports on the
subject matter.

In this case, she said it was important for atrazine's safety
record, regulatory history and its impact on the agricultural
community to be accurately messaged.

Ms. Thompson said she "respectfully" disagreed with Judge Mudge's
characterization of the firm's proposal as written in his order.

"It's important to recall that in October 2005, at that time,
there was a lot of intense media on the (Madison County)
judiciary," she said. "The references we make (in the proposal)
are in quotes."


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for June 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery will hold a hearing on June 21,
2011, to consider a proposed settlement of stockholder litigation
over Verizon Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Terremark
Worldwide Inc., according to Terremark's April 25, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 27, 2011, Terremark Worldwide, Inc., and Verizon
Communications, Inc., and Verizon Holdings, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger.

On February 10, 2011, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Verizon
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission an Offer to
Purchase, offering to purchase for cash all outstanding shares of
the common stock of Terremark for $19 per share (as amended from
time to time, the "Tender Offer").

The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, following
completion of the Tender Offer and upon the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth therein and the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware, as amended, Verizon Holdings will merge
with and into Terremark, with Terremark continuing as the
surviving corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon.

On February 10, 2011, Terremark filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement Under Section 14(d)(4) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Tender
Offer (as amended from time to time, the "Schedule 14D-9").

On February 7, 2011, a verified putative class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v.
Guillermo Amore, et al., C.A. No. 6175-VCN, challenging the Merger
and alleging that it was the product of a breach of fiduciary duty
by the Company's Board of Directors.

Between January 28, 2011, and February 14, 2011, five separate
putative class action complaints, also challenging the Merger,
were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, captioned: (i) Eileen
Stackewicz v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 11-03106 CA
40; (ii) Norbert Shaefer v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al., No.
11-03274 CA 32 & 11-03279 CA 32; (iii) Michael Jiannaras v.
Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 11-03471 CA 40; (iv) Andres
Trejo v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 11-04668 CA 3; and
(v) Clifton Adams v. Guillermo Amore, et al., No. 11-04838 CA 13
(the "Florida State Actions").

On February 2, 2011, and February 17, 2011, respectively, putative
class action complaints, also challenging the Merger, were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, captioned: (i) Thom Hogan v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:11-CV-20369-MGC; and (ii) Norman Abril v. Manuel
Medina, et al., No. 1:11-CV20555-CMA (collectively, the "Florida
Federal Actions," and together with the Florida State Actions, the
"Florida Actions") (the Florida Actions and the Delaware Action
are collectively referred to herein as the "Actions").

The Plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction with respect to the Transactions and an
accompanying application for expedited discovery.

On February 15, 2011, Vice Chancellor Noble of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware set a hearing in the Delaware
Action on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for
March 2, 2011.

Between February 11, 2011, and February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff in
the Delaware Action and Defendants engaged in expedited discovery.
Expedited discovery has included the production of more than
100,000 pages of documents by Defendants, Plaintiff and certain
third parties, and four depositions.

The parties to the Florida Actions had access to the discovery
taken in the Delaware Action.

On February 26, 2011, Plaintiff in the Delaware Action served a
verified amended complaint after the filing of the Schedule 14D-9
and discovery.

On February 26, 2011, Plaintiff in the Delaware Action also filed
its opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary
injunction with respect to the Transactions which, among other
things, included arguments that the Schedule 14D-9 contained false
and misleading statements and omitted material information.

After extensive arm's-length negotiations, the Parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Actions.  On February 28,
2011, the Parties entered into and executed a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the principal terms of the Settlement.

Pursuant to the MOU, on February 28, 2011, (i) Terremark made
additional disclosures concerning the Tender Offer; and (ii)
Verizon and Terremark entered into the amendment to the Merger
Agreement.

The Parties engaged in further discussions and negotiations with
respect to the final terms of the Settlement and executed the
Stipulation on April 2, 2011.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, the
Parties have, among other things, agreed to settle the Released
Claims (including without limitation those asserted in the Florida
Actions as well as those arising under both state and federal law)
against the Released Parties and to fully and completely settle
and resolve the Actions and all claims that were asserted or that
could have been asserted therein on the terms and conditions
contained therein, without any admission of liability or
wrongdoing.

Plaintiff's Co-Counsel have represented that Plaintiffs and
counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Florida Actions (Andres Trejo,
Norman Abril, Thom Hogan, Michael Jiannaras, Eileen Stackewicz,
Norbert Shaefer, and Clifton Adams have agreed to the Settlement
on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation.

Terremark and Defendants vigorously deny all allegations of
wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to Plaintiff, the Florida
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class and otherwise deny that they
engaged in any wrongdoing or committed, or aided or abetted, any
violation of law or breach of duty and believe that they acted
properly, in good faith and in a manner consistent with their
legal duties and obligations, and have entered into the
Stipulation solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to
resolve the Released Claims against the Released Persons fully and
finally.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Counsel have determined that a
settlement on the terms reflected in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of the Settlement
Class.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Counsel have determined that
the settlement will provide the Settlement Class with an improved
opportunity to obtain higher consideration for their shares as
well as additional information material to their decision with
respect to the Tender Offer and the Merger without any admission
as to the lack of merit of any of the claims asserted in the
Actions.

On April 4, 2011, the parties submitted the Stipulation to the
Court, which resulted in the Court entering a scheduling order,
that, among other things, preliminarily, for purposes of the
Settlement only, certified the Settlement Class, directed that
notice of the Settlement be provided to the Settlement Class, and
scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant
final approval of the Settlement.

On April 22, 2011, Terremark announced that the Delaware Court of
Chancery will hold a hearing on June 21 to consider the proposed
settlement of litigation brought in connection with Verizon's
acquisition of Terremark.

In accordance with the April 8 scheduling order issued by the
court, notice of the settlement will be mailed to all members of
the settlement class, namely those persons and entities that held
Terremark common stock at any point between and including
October 1, 2010, and April 11, 2011.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement.  If it is not approved, Terremark,
Verizon, and the other defendants intend to defend vigorously
against the claims.  All of the defendants continue to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing, fault or liability made in the
litigation and have entered into the settlement solely to avoid
the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation, and to resolve the claims against them fully
and finally.


UBS FINANCIAL: Sued for Illegally Using "Hedge Clauses"
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
UBS Financial Services uses illegal "hedge clauses" in its
investment-adviser agreements to limit its liability and waive its
fiduciary duties.

A copy of the Complaint in Hsu v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02076 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/28/UBS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Val D. Hornstein, Esq.
          Matthew R. Harrison, Esq.
          HORNSTEIN LAW OFFICES
          235 Pine Street, 13th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 454-1490
          E-mail: val@hornsteinlaw.com
                  mharrison@hornsteinlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Native American Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by
Mike Scarcella, a federal judge in Washington on April 28 approved
a $760 million settlement in a class action that Native American
farmers and ranchers brought over discrimination claims tied to
government loan processing.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington federal district court called
the terms of the settlement, reached after more than a decade of
litigation, historic, fair and appropriate.

The $760 million includes $680 million in damages and $80 million
in debt relief.  The settlement also calls on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to improve farm loan services.  The suit alleged
the government, between 1981 and 2007, denied Native American
farmers and ranchers the same opportunities as others to obtain
low-interest rate loans from the government.

The plaintiffs' team, which included Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, Jenner & Block, Patton Boggs and Colon, Frantz & Phelan,
will split $60.8 million in legal fees.  Over the objection of the
Justice Department, Sullivan today awarded the maximum amount
allowed under the agreement.  DOJ had pushed for $30.4 million in
fees.

Cohen Milstein partner Joseph Sellers, lead class counsel, said in
a statement on April 28 that final approval of the deal in
Keepseagle v. Vilsack, "marks the end of an unfortunate chapter in
our nation's history where USDA's credit discrimination against
Native Americans was the norm."  Mr. Sellers said the agreement
provides "compensation and justice" to Native Americans.

Tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers are expected to receive
compensation.  The settlement sets out two tracks -- one that
provides the ability to recover up to $50,000 and another that
allows recovery of up to $250,000 based on evidence of economic
loss.  The plaintiffs' lawyers said the settlement amount is
nearly the maximum the plaintiffs could have received at trial.

In a crowded courtroom on April 28 in Washington, Judge Sullivan
said "this case has been hard fought for over 11 years."  The
judge said he had no doubt the litigation and settlement
negotiations were conducted at "arm's length."

Judge Sullivan also noted the plaintiffs' team faced significant
risk of never getting paid for their work in the case.

"There were many battles looming on the horizon if this litigation
continued," the judge said.  He noted that in a similar suit,
filed by women and Hispanic farmers, judges in Washington denied
class certification.

Judge Sullivan called the plaintiffs' legal fees -- 8% of the
settlement -- on the "modest end of the range."  Citing a
colleague's decision in 2003 in an antitrust case, Judge Sullivan
said a fee award of 15% is not uncommon in mega-fund cases.

The judge also said he was satisfied the plaintiffs' lawyers
addressed his concern over designating banks that will receive,
and invest, the settlement fund before checks are cut to class to
members.  In court Judge Sullivan earlier asked the lawyers to
assess whether more of the money can be deposited into Native
American or minority-owned banks.

The plaintiffs' lawyers said "through a fresh and expanded
process" the team expects to ensure the safety of the funds,
generating a modest rate of return, while placing the money in
banks owned by Native Americans.  In court on April 28,
Judge Sullivan ensured class members that the issue over the banks
will not derail the settlement.

"Suffice it to say to all, congratulations," Judge Sullivan said
from the bench on April 28.  At the end of the two-hour hearing,
the judge stepped down and shook the hands of Justice lawyers,
plaintiffs' attorneys and members of the class.


                            *********

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, Julie Anne Lopez, 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  * * *