CAR_Public/110504.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 87

                             Headlines

ABINGTON BANCORP: Signs MOU to End Suit Over Susquehanna Merger
ACXIOM CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Class Action
AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss ERISA-Violation Suit Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Liberty Mutual Opposes Proposed Class Action Deal

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
APPLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Shareholder Suit
BP PLC: Units Face Class Action Over Defective POS System
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Lockdown Policy

CAPELLA EDUCATION: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit
CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Court Hears Landfill Class Action Settlement
CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Plumbing Suits in Canada Pending
CELERA CORP: Board Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by Quest
CERADYNE INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Calif. Labor Law Violations

CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Breach of IRA Account Agreement
DIRECTV: Suit Over Cancellation Fees Granted Class Action Status
EI DUPONT: Awaits Results of Experts' Studies in "Leach" Suit
EI DUPONT: Appeals Court Affirms 2010 Judgment in West Va. Lawsuit
EI DUPONT: Expects Med. Monitoring Enrollment Completed by 3Q 2011

FINISAR CORP: Sued for Materially False and Misleading Statements
HOSPIRA INC: Appeal of Ruling in ERISA Suit Still Pending
HUNGRY MACHINE: Sued for Selling Vouchers With Expiry Dates
HURON CONSULTING: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Set for May 6
IBM CORP: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Alleged Invasion of Privacy

J&B SMALL PARK: Caravan Park Residents Mull Class Action
JA SOLAR: Court to Consider Accord in Securities Suit on June 24
LENNOX INT'L: Hearing on "Keilholtz" Settlement Set for June 2
LEXISNEXIS SCREENING: Courthouse Corrects Error on Report
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Continues to Defend NY Securities Suit

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Defends Class Suits Over Securities Offering
NETFLIX INC: Sued for Violating Video Privacy Protection Act
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations in Florida
SEAWELL LTD: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Texas
SEAWELL LTD: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Amended Del. Suit

SHERWIN WILLIAMS: 4th Amended "Santa Clara County" Suit Pending
SIGMA ALDRICH: Class Suit Against Unit Still Pending in Ohio
SIOUX FALLS, SD: May 16 Trial Set for Drain System Class Action
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 2nd Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 3rd Suit Over Private Data Breach

STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Connecticut
SUBAYE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
TEMPUR PEDIC: Jacob's Plea for En Banc Review of Ruling Pending
TWITTER INC: Sued Over Unsolicited SMS Notifications
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois

WEST PUBLISHING: Bar Review Course Class Action Settled
YUM BRANDS: Trial on Taco Bell RGM Suit Set for Feb. 6, 2012
YUM BRANDS: Hearing on Wage Suit Class Cert. Motion Set for June 6
YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit Remains Stayed in California
YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Case Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling

YUM BRANDS: Second Amended Suit vs. KFC Still Pending
YUM BRANDS: Exemplar Trial in "Moeller" Suit Set for June 6
YUM BRANDS: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
YUM BRANDS: Awaits Arbitration Plea Ruling in "Whittington" Case




                             *********

ABINGTON BANCORP: Signs MOU to End Suit Over Susquehanna Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abington Bancorp, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve a class action lawsuit filed in
Pennsylvania Court in connection with its merger with Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc., according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 17, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
against the directors of Abington Bancorp, Inc., and Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc., RSD Capital vs. Robert W. White, et al., C.A.
No. 2011-06590.  The lawsuit in Montgomery County alleged that the
named directors, in approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, by
and between Abington and Susquehanna, dated January 26, 2011, and
Susquehanna, by entering into the Merger Agreement, intentionally
interfered with a contractual relationship between Abington and
its shareholders and interfered with a prospective economic
advantage of the Company's shareholders.  Plaintiffs in the
Montgomery County lawsuit, among other things, requested an
unspecified amount of monetary damages as well as a temporary
restraining order with respect to consummation of the merger.  On
April 13, 2011, upon consideration of the defendants' Preliminary
Objections, the lawsuit in Montgomery County was dismissed with
prejudice.

On March 25, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
separate plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, against the Company, the Company's directors
(other than Jack J. Sandoski) and Susquehanna, Exum, et al. vs.
Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 110302814.  The lawsuit in
Philadelphia County, which was also brought as a shareholders'
derivative suit on behalf of Abington, generally alleges, among
other things, that the Abington Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with its approval of the Merger
Agreement in that the consideration offered to Abington's
shareholders in the Merger was alleged to be inadequate and the
process used to negotiate the Merger Agreement was alleged to be
unfair, and that such breaches of fiduciary duty were exacerbated
by preclusive transaction protection devices.  The Philadelphia
County complaint also alleges that Abington and Susquehanna aided
and abetted the Abington Board of Directors in breaching its
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs in Philadelphia County
requested, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages and injunctive relief.  Both lawsuits also allege that the
disclosure provided to the Company's shareholders in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus of Abington and Susquehanna, dated
March 18, 2011, and included in the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed by Susquehanna with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (File No. 333-172626), failed to provide required
material information necessary for Abington's shareholders to make
a fully informed decision concerning the Merger Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby.

On April 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Abington and the other named
defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs in the Philadelphia County lawsuit.  Under the terms of
the memorandum, Abington, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to court
approval.  If the court approves the settlement contemplated in
the memorandum, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Abington has agreed to
make available additional information to its shareholders.  In
return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit
and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with the lawsuit.

In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $250,000
subject to court approval, and Abington has agreed not to oppose
plaintiffs' application.  The amount of the fee award to class
counsel will ultimately be determined by the Court.  This payment
will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in
the merger.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it is anticipated that it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to be
sent to Abington's shareholders prior to a hearing before the
court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee
application.

The Company says the settlement will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of shareholders of Abington scheduled for May 6,
2011, in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, to vote upon a proposal
to adopt the Merger Agreement.   Abington and the other defendants
deny all of the allegations in the lawsuit and believe the
disclosures previously included in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless,
the Company and the other defendants have agreed to settle the
putative class action litigation in order to avoid costly
litigation and its inherent risks.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuit, and
expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
burdens and are entering into the contemplated settlement solely
to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to
put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest.  The
Company says nothing in the Current Report on Form 8-K, the
Memorandum of Understanding or any stipulation of settlement shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth in the report.


ACXIOM CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Direct Marketing News reports that the law firm Izard Nobel filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of Acxiom Corp. common
stockholders, claiming Acxiom officers and directors violated
federal securities laws by failing to disclose facts about the
company's struggling financial performance.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court: Western District of
Arkansas, alleges that Acxiom withheld information about a
significant decline in its international operations; that the
company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its international operations; and that, as a result,
statements made by the defendants about the company's financial
performance and expected earnings were misleading.

Law firm Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman filed a similar class
action suit on April 28, according to a statement from the firm.
The statement uses the exact same terminology as Izard Nobel's
grievance to classify Acxiom's alleged offenses.  "With regard to
recent media coverage about a class action suit filed against
Acxiom on behalf of an institutional investor, it is the belief of
Acxiom that it has acted in accordance with the law and has not
done anything improper," the Little Rock, Ark.-based company said
in a statement.  "We intend to vigorously defend the merits of the
case."

Former Acxiom CEO John Meyer and former EVP and CFO Christopher
Wolf, who both resigned on March 30, are named as defendants in
suit, in addition to the company itself.  The complaint states
that Meyer and Wolf are liable for making false statements,
failing to disclose adverse facts, deceiving the public and
inflating the price of Acxiom stock.

The suit maintains that Acxiom stock traded at "inflated prices"
while the company withheld knowledge of a decline in operations.
Once the "revelations reached the market," around the time of
Meyer's departure, stocks fell 27.6%, according to the suit.

The allegations date back to October 27, 2010, when Acxiom
announced its second quarter 2011 earnings.  On an earnings call,
Meyer "made numerous positive statements about the company's
business, operations and prospects," according to the suit.
Similar statements were allegedly made during a Q3 2011 earnings
call, as well.

The plaintiffs are requesting damages and interest, legal fees and
other relief as the court may deem proper.

Izard Nobel did not respond to numerous interview requests.


AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc., and certain of its current
and former senior executives.  Additional putative securities
class actions were filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and certain derivative
actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the Court
appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi
and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead
plaintiffs for the putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the
Court also consolidated an ERISA class action lawsuit with the
putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-
trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint which supersedes the earlier-
filed securities class action complaints.  The Securities
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Company's policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects.
The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may
be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005, and
September 28, 2010.  All defendants have moved to dismiss the
Securities Complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss ERISA-Violation Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is
pending, according to Amedisys, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of its current and former senior executives and members of
the Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee.  The suits
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
since January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, respectively.  The
plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the
401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the
respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and
imprudent retirement investment because of the Company's alleged
improper business practices.  The complaints seek a determination
that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief.  On
December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class
actions with putative securities class actions and derivative
actions for pre-trial purposes.  In addition, on December 10,
2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison
counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint, which supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA class
action complaints.  The ERISA Complaint seeks a determination that
the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008, through present.  All
of the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.


AMERICAN INT'L: Liberty Mutual Opposes Proposed Class Action Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Group on April 29 disclosed that its Ohio Casualty
and Safeco units filed their opposition papers to a proposed
"settlement" of the class action suit pending against American
International Group for their decades of intentionally
underreporting workers compensation premium.

In Liberty Mutual Group's view, the "settlement" proposed by seven
Intervenors -- ACE, Auto-Owners, Companion, FirstComp, Hartford,
Technology and Travelers) is in AIG's self-interest and the
interest of several intervenors -- but it is detrimental to the
class of over 500 insurance companies victimized by AIG's admitted
wrongdoing.

The currently known extent of AIG's underreporting is $6.1
billion, nearly three times the amount that the settlement is
predicated upon.  Conservatively, the actual damage to the
insurance industry caused by AIG historic misbehavior exceeds
$1.5 billion.

The two Liberty Mutual Group units stepped forward two years ago
to make certain that AIG adequately addresses their systemic
practice of underreporting workers compensation premium, and they
remain in the best position to adequately represent the class and
prosecute the claims against AIG.  The proposed settlement is
nothing more than an attempt by AIG to circumvent an accurate
accounting by a court-appointed statistical expert of AIG's
decades of actual underreporting so the company could sidestep its
own culpability and avoid exemplary damages.  Liberty Mutual is
confident that the Court will see the proposed settlement as the
byproduct of a collusive process between AIG and hopelessly
conflicted parties.

                    About Liberty Mutual Group

"Helping people live safer, more secure lives" since 1912, Boston-
based Liberty Mutual Group is a diversified global insurer and
third largest property and casualty insurer in the U.S. based on
A.M. Best Company's report of 2010 net written premium.  The Group
also ranks 71(st) on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations
in the U.S. based on 2009 revenue.  As of December 31, 2010,
Liberty Mutual Group had $112.4 billion in consolidated assets,
$95.4 billion in consolidated liabilities, and $33.2 billion in
annual consolidated revenue.

Liberty Mutual Group offers a wide range of insurance products and
services, including personal automobile, homeowners, workers
compensation, property, commercial automobile, general liability,
global specialty, group disability, reinsurance and surety.
Liberty Mutual Group -- http://www.libertymutualgroup.com/--
employs over 45,000 people in more than 900 offices throughout the
world


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
against American Superconductor Corp. and certain of its officers.
The class action (Civil Action No. 11-cv-10743), pending in the
District of Massachusetts, is on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased AMSC during the period from July 29, 2010 through
April 5, 2011.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AMSC securities during the
Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until June 6, 2011 to seek appointment from the
Court.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact
Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll
free.

During the Class Period, the Company's quarterly revenues were
largely derived from one primary customer, Sinovel Wind Group Co.,
Ltd.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was providing Sinovel with
contracted shipments in excess of its needs; (2) Sinovel was not
paying AMSC for certain contracted shipments; (3) the Company was
continuing to provide Sinovel with contracted shipments even
though Sinovel was not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) the
Company was improperly recognizing revenue on certain contracted
shipments provided to Sinovel; and (5) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls.
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=220384
On April 5, 2011, the Company disclosed that Sinovel had recently
refused to accept contracted shipments, and believed that Sinovel
intended to reduce its level of inventory before accepting any
further shipments.  The Company said that as a result its earnings
for the 2010 fiscal fourth quarter and year would be substantially
below the Company's previous forecasts.  Furthermore, the Company
revealed that Sinovel had yet to pay AMSC for certain contracted
shipments that occurred during the 2010 fiscal year.  The Company
acknowledged that the accumulated aged accounts receive
able due to payment delays and Sinovel's recent refusal to accept
March deliveries raised questions about the appropriateness of the
timing of its revenue recognition on approximately $56 million of
unpaid shipments in the second, third and fourth quarters of
fiscal 2010.  On this news, AMSC shares declined $10.41 per share,
or nearly 42%, to close at $14.47 per share on April 6, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  It has ,
offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.  Founded by the
late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action
bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class
actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty,
and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle
         Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
         888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         rrboyle@pomlaw.com


APPLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights
----------------------------------------------
Arun Gupta, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02110 (N.D. Calif.
April 28, 2011), is a complaint against Apple, Inc.'s unlawful
collection of information correlated to its customer's
geolocation, in "wholesale violation of numerous state and federal
laws, including the Stored Communications Act and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

According to the Complaint, Apple has consistently maintained that
iPhone customers who object to having their geolocation collected
by Apple can manually turn off the "Locations Services" function
through the device's settings.  However, contrary to the Company's
statements, Apple "intentionally designed the iPhone to regularly
transmit information correlated to users' geolocation to Apple's
servers, after a customer turns "Off" Locations Services."

Plaintiff Gupta is a natural person and citizen of Pennsylvania.
Apple manufactures the popular smartphone, the iPhone.  Apple also
developed the proprietary software used to operate the iPhone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  wgray@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The presiding judge for the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'s
motion for judgment as a matter of law and entered judgments in
favor of defendants as to all of plaintiffs' claims in a
shareholder class action brought against the Company and certain
of its directors and executive officers, according to the
Company's April 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On November 18, 2010, the jury in the lawsuit returned a verdict
in favor of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's
Class A Common Stock during the period from April 26, 2007, to
October 26, 2007.  At that time, the Company stated that it
believed that the verdict was contrary to law and would be set
aside either by the Court or on appeal.

BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alan B.
Levan commented, "We are obviously very pleased with this result.
It goes without saying that this has been a very difficult time
for banks in Florida.  BankAtlantic lost money and Bancorp's stock
price declined largely because of the collapse of the Florida real
estate market, a risk that was fully disclosed."

BankAtlantic Bancorp previously filed a motion for sanctions that
the Judge denied without prejudice to reasserting following entry
of these judgments.  BankAtlantic Bancorp intends to seek recovery
of its attorneys' fees and costs against the plaintiffs and their
counsel.


BP PLC: Units Face Class Action Over Defective POS System
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of SeegerWeiss LLP and Lee Tran & Liang, APLC
disclosed that they jointly filed a class action lawsuit on
April 29 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of owners of BP and ARCO gas
station franchises and am/pm convenience store franchises.  The
defendants are BP West Coast Products LLC and BP Products North
America, Inc., both subsidiaries of BP p.l.c., and Retalix LTD.

The case is entitled Green Desert Oil Group Inc., et al. v.  BP
West Coast Products LLC, et al. (N.D. Calif. Case No. CV-11-2087).

The wrongful and illegal conduct set forth in the complaint
include the following: (i) BP Defendants required all franchisees
to install a new centralized point of sale computer system
developed by co-defendant Retalix LTD that is defective which in
turn, resulted in substantial damages to the franchisees such as
lost operation time, lost revenue, lost or inaccurate inventory,
lost receivables and cash, and increased operating costs and
burdens; (ii) BP's illegal manipulation of gas supply and pricing;
(iii) BP's improper direct control of and/or pricing by third-
party vendors; (iv) BP's policy of forcing sale of items and
collection of fees for which Plaintiffs receive no compensation.

There are over 1600 franchised BP and ARCO gas stations and am/pm
stores across the country, all of whom are part of the proposed
class for this lawsuit.  The Service Station Franchise
Association, Inc. (SSFA), which represents a large number of the
franchisees, has been instrumental in assisting the plaintiffs in
their quest to bring the defendants to justice via this action.

SeegerWeiss is one of the nation's preeminent plaintiffs' law
firms with offices in New York City, Los Angeles and other cities.
It specializes in mass tort and class action litigation.  The
firm's reputation for exceptional results, leadership and
innovation has resulted in its appointment to numerous plaintiffs'
steering or executive committees in a variety of high-profile
multidistrict litigations throughout the United States.  Among its
recent accomplishments include acting as Lead Counsel for
Plaintiffs in the Vioxx Litigation against Merck & Co. that
resulted in historic $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largest
settlements of a mass litigation in United States history.

LTL, based in Los Angeles, is one of the most technologically-
savvy business trial law firms in the country.  LTL has extensive
experience -- and achieved significant successes -- handling high-
stakes matters involving some of the most sophisticated computer
technologies.  Founded in 2003 as the first spin-off of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, one of the leading business
trial law firms in the world, LTL has garnered its shares of
accolades and successes.  LTL attorneys have consistently been
honored by their peers and legal publications as among the rising
stars in the legal profession.

For more information, please contact:

          Christopher Seeger, Esq.
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGERWEISS LLP
          One William Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  jshub@seegerweiss.com

                - or -

          James M. Lee, Esq.
          K. Luan Tran, Esq.
          LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4025
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-612-3737
          E-mail: jml@ltlcounsel.com
                  klt@ltlcounsel.com


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Lockdown Policy
---------------------------------------------------
B.J. Hansen, writing for myMOTHERLODE.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed against the California Department of
Corrections could affect the Sierra Conservation Center.

The non-profit Berkeley based Prison Law Office has filed a
lawsuit arguing that race should not be a determining factor when
placing an inmate on lockdown status.  Inmates are sometimes
placed into temporary confinement following a fight or riot.

Inmates often separate themselves by race while in prison, and
sometimes there are fights between the different ethnic groups.
Often times when a large fight breaks out, inmates in the entire
area are put on lockdown.

Lt. David Fish at Sierra Conservation Center says it is done for
safety reasons.  "The inmates out on the yard have their own rules
that they seem to go by," says Lt. Fish.  "The inmates want to
help one another out, and if one inmate has been affected by one
race, the rest of that race wants to stand up and look out for
him."

Lt. Fish says inmates are placed back into the regular prison
program as quickly and safely as possible.

"We need to look out for the inmates, staff and public to make
sure that the disturbance does not spread," he adds.

The lawsuit claims that there are around 350 full or partial race
lockdowns annually across the 30 state prisons.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota appointed
the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP, as lead
counsel, in the securities class action lawsuit filed against
Capella Education Company, according to the Company's April 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about the Company's business and
prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010, through
August 13, 2010, in violation of federal securities laws, and that
these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class.  Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
have been filed with the federal court.  The Company has not yet
responded to these complaints.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the Court
appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as
lead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP, as lead
counsel.  The Company anticipates a consolidated amended complaint
will be filed by mid-June and the plaintiffs will seek substantial
damages.

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


CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Court Hears Landfill Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Randall, writing for Cranbourne Leader, reports that
Justice Karin Emerton is hearing submissions from law firm Slater
and Gordon on behalf of the class action's plaintiffs in support
of the application to approve the settlement.

Casey Council ($13.5 million) and the EPA ($10 million) have
agreed to share the monetary burden to compensate residents
affected by the botched closure of the Stevensons Rd Landfill.

Class action members claim the methane gas leaks from the
Stevensons Rd Landfill have diminished property values and
interfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes.

The court heard on April 29 that a pollution abatement notice
issued to the council by the Environment Protection Authority last
year was a key to the settlement being proposed.

The notice stated that the council must undertake works to ensure
that by July 29, 2012, landfill does not exceed 1 per cent by
volume of methane and 1.5% volume of carbon dioxide at certain
measuring points.

Slater and Gordon QC Jim Delaney said the document provided
"considerable confidence for plaintiffs in terms of future risks".

Thirty of the 771 property owners have lodged objections to the
settlement scheme.

Several of the objectors are present in court.

If the settlement is approved, Slater and Gordon will take its
$6 million cut, leaving $17.5 million to be split among the 771
Brookland Greens residents.


CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Plumbing Suits in Canada Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of class action lawsuits filed in Canada against a
unit of Celanese Corporation remains pending, according to the
Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

CNA Holdings LLC, a US subsidiary of the Company, which included
the US business now conducted by the Ticona business that is
included in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment, along with
Shell Oil Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and others,
has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a number
of class actions, alleging that plastics manufactured by these
companies that were utilized in the production of plumbing systems
for residential property were defective or caused such plumbing
systems to fail.  Based on, among other things, the findings of
outside experts and the successful use of Ticona's acetal
copolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not believe
Ticona's acetal copolymer was defective or caused the plumbing
systems to fail.  In addition, in many cases, CNA Holdings'
potential future exposure may be limited by invocation of the
statute of limitations.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements that called for the replacement
of plumbing systems of claimants who have had qualifying leaks, as
well as reimbursements for certain leak damage.  In connection
with such settlements, the three companies had agreed to fund
these replacements and reimbursements up to an aggregate amount of
$950 million.  As of March 31, 2011, the aggregate funding is
$1,111 million due to additional contributions and funding
commitments made primarily by other parties.  The time to file
claims for the class in Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese
Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County,
Tennessee) has expired.  Accordingly, the court ruled the terms of
the Cox settlement have been fully performed.  The entity
previously established to administer all Cox related claims was
dissolved on September 24, 2010.

These cases remain pending against CNA Holdings:

   * Aaustad, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C994680
     (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry,
     Canada);

   * Aitken, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 990317943
     (Alberta Supreme Court, Judicial District, Edmonton,
     Canada);

   * Couture, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No.
     200-06-000001-985 (Quebec Superior Court, Canada);

   * Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967239 (British
     Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, Canada);

   * Gariepy, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 30781/99
     (Ontario Court General Division, Canada) (pending final
     approval of nationwide Canadian class settlement);

   * St. Croix Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No.
     1997/467 (Territorial Ct., St. Croix Division, the US Virgin
     Islands);

   * Tranter v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 46565/97 (Ontario
     Court General Division, Canada);

   * Williams v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., et al., No.
     VLCSS104060 (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver
     Registry, Canada); and

   * In re U.S. Brass Corp., No. 94-408235 (Bankruptcy Court,
     Eastern Division, Texas).

On January 24, 2011, and February 7, 2011, the Chancery Court for
Weakley County, Tennessee entered judgments in Shelter General
Insurance Co., et al., v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 16809 and
Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al. No. 15187,
respectively, dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
Company.

The class actions in Canada are subject to a pending settlement
that would result in the dismissal of those actions.  In all of
these actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for alleged
damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing.  Damage amounts
have generally not been specified but these actions generally do
not involve (either individually or in the aggregate) a large
number of homes.

The Company says its remaining plumbing action accruals recorded
in the unaudited consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2011,
and December 31, 2010 is $9 million.


CELERA CORP: Board Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by Quest
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon M. McCreary, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Celera Corp.,  et al., Case No. 11-cv-01618 (N.D.
Calif. April 1, 2011), asserts claims against the board of
directors of Celera Corp. for breaches of fiduciary duty, and
against the Company and Quest Diagnostics, Inc., and its wholly
owned subsidiary Spark Acquisition Corporation, for aiding and
abetting those breaches, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Celera by Quest.

Mr. McCreary also brings an individual claim against Celera and
the Board for their violations of Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the
plaintiff, defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts in
violation of sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act.

In the Complaint, Mr. McCreary says the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by among other things, impeding
and erecting barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives
including offers from interested parties for the Company or its
assets.

These barriers include:

  -- a strict "no shop" provision;

  -- a strict "standstill" provision which prohibits, except under
     extremely limited circumstances, the defendants from even
     engaging in discussions or negotiations relating to proposals
     regarding alternative business combinations;

  -- a matching rights provision; and

  -- a $23.45 million termination fee to be paid if Celera
     terminates the proposed acquisition.

On March 18, 2011, Celera and Quest jointly announced that the
Company and Quest had entered into a definitive merger agreement,
pursuant to which Quest will commence a tender offer to purchase
all of the outstanding shares of Celera common stock for $8.00 per
share in cash, followed by a second-step merger, in a transaction
valued at approximately $671 million.

The deal price includes Celera's cash and short-term investments,
which total $327 million and $117 million in deterred tax credits
and net operating losses.  Excluding those items, the proposed
acquisition has been valued at approximately $227 million.

Mr. McCreary, a resident of Nevada, is a holder of Celera common
stock.

Celera is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters located at
1401 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, California.  Celera stock is
publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker "CRA".
Celera is a healthcare business delivering personalized disease
management through a combination of products and services
incorporating proprietary discoveries.

Quest is a leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and
services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare
decisions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 461-1426
          E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

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


CERADYNE INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Calif. Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceradyne, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in California
alleging that the Company did not provide employees with meal and
rest periods in accordance with California law, according to the
Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2011, in the
California Superior Court for Orange County (Civil Action No. 30-
2011-00465269), in which it was asserted that the representative
plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative class
members, were not provided with meal and rest periods in
accordance with California law, and were not paid overtime at an
appropriate overtime rate.  The Company has not yet filed a
response to this lawsuit, nor has discovery commenced.
Accordingly, the impact of the outcome of this case is
undeterminable at this time.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Breach of IRA Account Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------
Joy Yoshioka, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01625 (N.D. Calif. April 4, 2011), brings claims for
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Section
1750 et seq. of the California Civil Code, unfair competition,
breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff asks the Court for an order awarding restitution and
disgorgement of all monies paid by plaintiff and the Class Members
or ill-gotten gains realized by defendants as a direct result of
defendants' unlawful and unfair business practices.

Plaintiff says defendants took a security interest in the assets
of plaintiff and Class Members, a "prohibited transaction" under
IRA regulations, and in breach of their Account Agreement with
Class Members.  Individual Retirement Accounts lose their tax
exempt status if the IRA owner engages in a "prohibited
transaction" with their IRA.

26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(1)(B) provides that the direct or indirect,
"lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan and
a disqualified person" will be considered a prohibited
transaction.

According to Ms. Yoshioka, defendants knew or should have known
that requiring an IRA owner to pledge the IRA owner's non-IRA
assets for the benefit of the defendants would result in the IRA
owner engaging in a prohibited transaction and thus losing the tax
exempt status of their retirement savings account.

Further, defendants knew or should have known that requiring an
IRA owner to indemnify the defendants against a loss or
guaranteeing payment to the defendants in the event of a loss
sustained in the IRA would result in the IRA owner engaging in a
prohibited transaction and thus losing the exempt status of their
retirement savings account.

Ms. Yoshioka is a resident of Redding, Calif.  She opened an
Individual Retirement Account with defendants in December 2010.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a holding company which engages
in securities brokerage, banking services, and related financial
services through its subsidiaries.  It is headquartered at 211
Main Street, in San Francisco, California.

Schwab Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Charles
Schwab Corporation.  It is headquartered at 211 Main Street, in
San Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schwab
Holdings, Inc., and is the custodian for plaintiff's retirement
account.  It is also located at 211 Main Street, in San Francisco,
California.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Bakhtiari, Esq.
          AIDIKOFF, UHL & BAKHTIARI
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 274-0666
          Email: rbakhtiari@aol.com

               - and -

          Barbara Quinn Smith, Esq.
          MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
          9853 Johnnycake Ridge Road, Suite 302
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 354-4010
          E-mail: bqsmith@mhclaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Caldwell, Esq.
          T. John Kirk, Esq.
          MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
          10100 Lantern Rd., Suite 150
          Fishers, IN 46037
          Telephone: (317) 598-2040
          E-mail: tkcaldwell@mhclaw.com
                  kirktjohn@mbclaw.com

               - and -

          Tim Berry, Esq.
          TIM BERRY P.C.
          11812 E. Toledo
          Gilbert, AZ 85295
          Telephone: (602) 652-2875
          E-mail: tim@iraideas.com


DIRECTV: Suit Over Cancellation Fees Granted Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit for California DIRECTV customers represented by The
Evans Law Firm, Consumer Watchdog, the Law Offices of Edie
Mermelstein, Milstein Adelman and Sprenger + Lang by DIRECTV
customers who were alleged to have been illegally charged "early
cancellation penalties" -- fees of up to $480 -- has been granted
"class action" status by a California court, potentially leading
to millions of dollars in refunds.  DIRECTV is the largest
satellite TV provider in the U.S. with over 16 million customers,
and its principal place of business is located in El Segundo,
California.

Los Angeles Superior Judge Emilie Elias issued the ruling last
Friday in a suit filed in September 2008 on behalf of DIRECTV
customers who were charged a cancellation penalty when they
cancelled service.  The complaint alleges that DIRECTV applied its
unlawful penalty provision to all of its customers, including, in
some cases, customers who terminated because the satellite
equipment stopped working or they were no longer able to receive
service when they moved.  The complaint also alleges that in other
cases, DIRECTV would unilaterally extend a consumer's "programming
commitment" by a year or two if malfunctioning equipment needed to
be replaced or the customer decided to upgrade receivers and then
charge the fee if the customer stopped service after that.  In
some cases, according to the suit, DIRECTV took the fees from
their customers' bank or credit card accounts without their
permission.

The lawsuit alleges that the fees are illegal under California's
consumer protection laws.  In addition to arguing that its
cancellation penalties are legal, DIRECTV claimed that the
company's recent "settlement" with the Attorneys General of
California and other states resolved the plaintiffs' complaints.
The court rejected that argument, specifically noting that the
Attorney General settlement did not bar DIRECTV from applying the
cancellation fee in the future.

"We have alleged in the complaint that this type of business
practice is a direct violation of California's consumer protection
laws.  The court's ruling certifying the class is a step towards
achieving justice for DIRECTV customers that were charged an
illegal penalty," said Ingrid M. Evans of The Evans Law Firm,
San Francisco, CA, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Another attorney for the plaintiffs, Pamela Pressley of Consumer
Watchdog said, "DIRECTV's cancellation penalties were designed to
hold their customers hostage and keep them from switching to other
companies even when they could no longer receive the service
because of faulty equipment or because they moved.  Now, after
nearly three years of delaying tactics by DIRECTV, its California
customers will finally have their day in court to seek refunds and
to stop DIRECTV's improper cancellation penalties."

Certifying the case as a "class action" means that all California
consumers who were victimized by DIRECTV's alleged unlawful
actions and do not choose to opt out of the action will be
represented in the litigation.

Ingrid M. Evans, of the Evans Law Firm, San Francisco, CA and
Sprenger + Lang, PLLC, Washington DC represent Plaintiff Amy
Imburgia, a California resident who in 2008 filed the first
California State court class action lawsuit under California's
Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
Lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC398295.

This action was later consolidated with a related action brought
by Consumer Watchdog, the Law Offices of Edie Mermelstein and
Milstein Adelman, LLP and on behalf Long Beach resident Kathy
Greiner.  Similar suits were filed in federal courts throughout
the country.  They have since been consolidated in one federal
court, the Central District of California, Southern Division,
located in Santa Ana.


EI DUPONT: Awaits Results of Experts' Studies in "Leach" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is awaiting results of a
panel of experts' studies on whether exposure to perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) results to human disease, according to the Company's
April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court against DuPont and the Lubeck
Public Service District.  The complaint alleged that residents
living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may
suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in
drinking water.  The relief sought included damages for medical
monitoring, diminution of property values and punitive damages
plus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA.  DuPont and
attorneys for the class reached a settlement agreement in 2004 and
as a result, the Company established accruals of $108 million in
2004.  The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000
residents.  As defined by the court, the class includes those
individuals who have consumed, for at least one year, water
containing 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) or greater of PFOA from
any of six designated public water sources or from sole source
private wells.

In July 2005, the Company paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which
class counsel has designated to fund a community health project.
The Company is also funding a series of health studies by an
independent science panel of experts in the communities exposed to
PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any
probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
The Company expects the independent science panel to complete
these health studies between 2009 and year-end 2012 at a total
estimated cost of $32 million.  In addition, the Company is
providing state-of-the-art water treatment systems designed to
reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts,
including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), until the
science panel determines that PFOA does not cause disease or until
applicable water standards can be met without such treatment.  All
of the water treatment systems are operating.

The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted in
the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the independent
science panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would also
resolve personal injury claims.  If it concludes that a probable
link does exist between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then
DuPont would also fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring
program to pay for such medical testing.  In this event,
plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injury
claims.  All other claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by
the settlement.

DuPont believes that it is remote that the panel will find a
probable link.  Therefore, at March 31, 2011, the Company has not
established any accruals related to medical monitoring or personal
injury claims.  However, there can be no assurance as to what the
independent science panel will conclude.


EI DUPONT: Appeals Court Affirms 2010 Judgment in West Va. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment entered in
2010 in favor of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company relating to
a West Virginia class action lawsuit brought by water district
customers, according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

At March 31, 2011, there were four actions pending brought by or
on behalf of water district customers in New Jersey, Ohio and West
Virginia.  The cases generally claim perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination of drinking water and seek a variety of relief
including compensatory and punitive damages, testing, treatment,
remediation and monitoring.  In addition, the two New Jersey class
actions and the Ohio action, brought by the Little Hocking Water
Association (LHWA), claim "imminent and substantial endangerment
to health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).  In the first quarter 2011, the court
preliminarily approved the agreement in principle to settle the
two New Jersey class actions for $8.3 million.  The final approval
hearing is scheduled for the second quarter 2011.  Discovery
continues in the Ohio action.  In the West Virginia class action,
the court entered judgment for DuPont in the first quarter 2010,
which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in April
2011.

DuPont denies the claims alleged in these civil drinking water
actions and is defending itself vigorously.


EI DUPONT: Expects Med. Monitoring Enrollment Completed by 3Q 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company expects class members'
enrollment in a medical monitoring program under its settlement of
a class action lawsuit captioned Perrine v DuPont to be completed
by the third quarter of 2011, according to the Company's April 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class
action captioned Perrine v DuPont, against DuPont that seeks
relief including the provision of remediation services and
property value diminution damages for 7,000 residential properties
in the vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West
Virginia.  The action also seeks medical monitoring for an
undetermined number of residents in the class area.  The smelter
was owned and operated by at least three companies between 1910
and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950.  DuPont
performed remedial measures at the request of EPA in the late
1990s and in 2001, repurchased the site to facilitate and complete
the remediation.  The fall 2007 trial was conducted in four
phases: liability, medical monitoring, property and punitive
damages.  The jury found against DuPont in all four phases
awarding $55.5 million for property remediation and $196.2 million
in punitive damages.  In post trial motions, the court adopted the
plaintiffs' forty-year medical monitoring plan estimated by
plaintiffs to cost $130 million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys
legal fees of $127 million plus $8 million in expenses based on
and included in the total jury award.  DuPont appealed to the West
Virginia Supreme Court (the Court) seeking review of a number of
issues.  The Court issued its decision on March 26, 2010,
affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's
decision.

The Court conditionally affirmed the verdict, but reduced punitive
damages to $97.7 million.  The Court reversed the trial court's
order granting summary judgment to the adult plaintiffs on the
issue of statute of limitations and ordered a new jury trial on
the sole issue of when the plaintiffs possessed requisite
knowledge to trigger the running of the statute.

In November 2010, plaintiffs and DuPont reached an agreement to
settle this matter for $70 million which the Company paid in the
first quarter 2011.  In addition, the agreement requires DuPont to
fund a medical monitoring program.  The initial set-up costs
associated with the program were included in the $70 million.

The Company says it will reassess its liability related to funding
the medical monitoring program as eligible members of the class
elect to participate and enroll in the program, as those costs
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.  Enrollment in the
program is expected to be completed in the third quarter 2011.  As
of March 31, 2011, the Company does not have any accruals related
this matter.


FINISAR CORP: Sued for Materially False and Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Wade, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01635 (N.D. Calif.
April 4, 2011), is filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Finisar securities between December 1, 2010,
and March 8, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
financial well-being, business operations and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the
following: (1) that Finisar was facing increased competition,
which would make it necessary for the Company to offer large
discounts in order to retain certain customers; (2) that the
Company was experiencing a significant slowdown in business in and
from China; (3) that the Company's recent revenue numbers were due
in part to the buildup of inventory by Finisar's customers, and
that these customers would decrease the amount of products ordered
from Finisar as they were left with an oversupply of inventory;
(4) particular uncertainties and known trends regarding the
Company's revenue growth rate (including the fact that Finisar
would be unable to continue growing at the recent pace), as
required by SEC regulations; (5) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about the Company's operations
and prospects lacked any reasonable basis when made.

On March 8, 2011, Finisar announced that its fourth quarter 2011
revenues would be lower than analyst estimates and in "stark
contrast" to what defendants had intimated throughout the Class
Period.  The Company disclosed that, during the quarter, it would
be impacted by the full three months of annual price negotiations
with telecom customers, certain customers being shut down for the
Chinese New Year in February, the adjustment of inventory levels
at some telecom customers, and an overall slowdown in Chinese
business.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $15.43 per share,
or 38.54%, 9 to close on March 9, 2011, at $24.61 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Finisar is a technology company for fiber optic subsystems and
components that enable high-speed voice, video and data
communications for telecommunications, networking, storage,
wireless, and cable TV applications.

Mr. Wade purchased Finisar securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and has been damaged as a result.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          E-mail: rabadou@btkmc.com
                  skaplan@btkmc.com
                  epeterson@btkmc.com


HOSPIRA INC: Appeal of Ruling in ERISA Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of a court ruling in favor of Hospira, Inc., and
Abbott Laboratories in the lawsuit captioned Myla Nauman, Jane
Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,
Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging
generally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott Laboratories
resulted in a mass termination of employees so as to interfere
with the future attainment of benefits in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The lawsuit was
filed on November 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned: Myla Nauman, Jane
Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,
Inc.  Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in Abbott benefit
plans, disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees.  On
November 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and Hospira for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  Hospira has been dismissed as a
defendant with respect to the fiduciary duty claim.  By Order
dated December 30, 2005, the Court granted class action status to
the lawsuit.  As to the sole claim against Hospira, the court
certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were
participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with
Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004,
as a result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital Products
Division] /creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22,
2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott
Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations."

Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in the
complaint.  Trial of this matter has concluded.  On April 22,
2010, the court issued a ruling in favor of Hospira and Abbott on
all counts.  Plaintiffs have appealed that verdict.  In 2008,
Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that Hospira
indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur in
connection with this litigation.  Hospira denies any obligation to
indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in this
litigation.


HUNGRY MACHINE: Sued for Selling Vouchers With Expiry Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gosling, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Hungry Machine, Inc., d/b/a LivingSocial.com, Case No.
11-cv-02094 (N.D. Calif. April 28, 2011), accuses the web-based
company of selling gift certificates, called "vouchers" by
defendant, with expiration dates that are deceptive and illegal
under both federal and state laws.

LivingSocial offers discounted deals on a variety of products and
services, including restaurants and bars, salons and spas,
clothing and other retail items, fitness classes, and other
recreational courses, by directly partnering with the retail
businesses and merchants that provide the products or services.

Once consumers purchase a LivingSocial gift certificate for a
particular "Daily Deal," LivingSocial charges each consumer the
advertised purchase amount.  LivingSocial then sends a
confirmatory e-mail to each purchasing consumer with a link to its
Web site for downloading and printing the LivingSocial gift
certificate, which then may be redeemed with the retail business
offering the product or service for a limited period of time.

According to the Complaint, the federal Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 693, el seq., specifically prohibit the sale
and issuance of gift certificates, such as those sold by
LivingSocial, with expiration periods of less than five years,
while California Civil Code Sec. 1749.5 prohibits the sale and
issuance of gift certificates with any expiration period.

Ms. Gosling is a resident of San Francisco, California. During the
relevant time period, Ms. Gosling received offers for products and
services from LivingSocial and purchased a gift certificate based
on representations and claims made by LivingSocial.

Hungry Machine, Inc., d/b/a LivingSocial.com, is a privately-held
company incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.
LivingSocial's corporate headquarters is located in Washington
D.C.  LivingSocial is registered to do business in the state of
California and does business in the state of California.
LivingSocial markets, sells and issues its gift certificates to
millions of consumers throughout the United States, including
hundreds of thousands of consumers in California and in San
Francisco County.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq.
          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          Phong L. Tran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: johns@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdtaw.com
                  ptran@rgrdlaw.com


HURON CONSULTING: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Set for May 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing has been set for May 6, 2011, with respect to
the final approval of a settlement in a consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit against Huron Consulting Group Inc.,
according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In August 2009, the SEC commenced an investigation with respect to
the restatement and an investigation into the allocation of time
within a certain practice group.  The Company also conducted a
separate inquiry, in response to the initial inquiry from the SEC,
into the allocation of time within a certain practice group.  This
matter had no impact on billings to the Company's clients, but
could have impacted the timing of when revenue was recognized.
Based on the Company's internal inquiry, which is complete, the
Company has concluded that an adjustment to its historical
financial statements is not required with respect to this matter.
The SEC investigations with respect to the restatement and the
allocation of time within a certain practice group are ongoing.
The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC in its
investigations.  As often happens in these circumstances, the
United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Illinois has contacted the Company's counsel.  The USAO made a
telephonic request for copies of certain documents that the
Company previously provided to the SEC, which the Company has
voluntarily provided to the USAO.

In addition, these purported shareholder class action complaints
were filed in connection with the Company's restatement in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois:

   (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge,
       filed on August 4, 2009;

   (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
       Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
       August 5, 2009;

   (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
       Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
       August 5, 2009;

   (4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
       Wayne Lipski, filed on August 5, 2009;

   (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
       PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 7, 2009;

   (6) a complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
       Wayne Lipski, filed on August 7, 2009; and

   (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher v. Huron
       Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
       Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
       September 3, 2009.

On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.  On November 16, 2009, the remaining suits were
consolidated and the Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement
Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,
the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement
System and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
on January 29, 2010.  The consolidated complaint asserts claims
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary
Holdren and Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.
The consolidated complaint contends that the Company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
GAAP.  Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.  On
March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne Lipski
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On
August 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On
December 6, 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with Lead Plaintiffs to settle the litigation (the Class Action
Settlement), pursuant to which the plaintiffs will receive total
consideration of approximately $39.6 million, comprised of $27.0
million in cash and the issuance by the Company of 474,547 shares
of the Company's common stock (the Settlement Shares).  The
Settlement Shares had an aggregate value of approximately $12.6
million based on the closing market price of the Company's common
stock on December 31, 2010.  As a result of the Class Action
Settlement, the Company recorded a non-cash charge to earnings in
the fourth quarter of 2010, of $12.6 million representing the fair
value of the Settlement Shares and a corresponding settlement
liability.

During the first quarter of 2011, the Company recorded an
additional $0.6 million non-cash charge related to the Settlement
Shares to reflect the fair value of the Settlement Shares as of
March 31, 2011, which totaled $13.2 million, and a corresponding
increase to the Company's recorded settlement liability.  The
Company will continue to adjust the amount of the non-cash charge
and corresponding settlement liability to reflect changes in the
fair value of the Settlement Shares until and including the date
of issuance, which may result in either additional non-cash
charges or non-cash gains.  In accordance with the proposed
settlement, in the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company also
recorded a receivable for the cash portion of the consideration,
which was funded into escrow in its entirety by the Company's
insurance carriers in the first quarter of 2011, and a
corresponding settlement liability.  There was no impact to the
Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the cash
consideration as the Company concluded that a right of setoff
existed in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic
210-20-45, "Other Presentation Matters".  The total amount of
insurance coverage under the related policy was $35.0 million and
the insurers had previously paid out approximately $8.0 million in
claims prior to the final $27.0 million payment.

As a result of the final payment by the insurance carriers, the
Company will not receive any further contributions from the
Company's insurance carriers for the reimbursement of legal fees
expended on the finalization of the Class Action Settlement or any
amounts (including any damages, settlement costs or legal fees)
with respect to the SEC investigation with respect to the
restatement, the USAO's request for certain documents and the
purported private shareholder class action lawsuit and derivative
lawsuits in respect of the restatement.  The proposed Class Action
Settlement received preliminary court approval on January 21,
2011, and is subject to final court approval and the issuance of
the Settlement Shares.  A Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled
to consider final approval of the settlement on May 6, 2011.  The
issuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to occur after final
court approval is granted.  There can be no assurance that final
court approval will be granted.  The proposed settlement contains
no admission of wrongdoing.  Additionally, the Company has the
right to terminate the settlement if class members representing
more than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect to
opt out of the settlement.


IBM CORP: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Alleged Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation faces numerous
purported class actions in California in connection with its
information technology outsourcing agreement with Health Net,
Inc., according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is a co-defendant in numerous purported class actions
filed on and after March 18, 2011, in federal and state courts in
California in connection with an information technology
outsourcing agreement between Health Net, Inc. and IBM.  The
complaints allege numerous and different causes of action,
including for violation of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, unfair competition, invasion of privacy,
negligence, bailment and conversion, in connection with plaintiffs
having been notified that certain of their personal information is
believed to be contained on hard drives that are unaccounted for
at one of Health Net's data centers in California.  Plaintiffs in
these cases seek damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  IBM has also received a request for information regarding
this matter from the California Attorney General.


J&B SMALL PARK: Caravan Park Residents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Olivier Vergnault, writing for Herald Express, reports that
caravan park residents are considering legal action against their
landlord as part of a Westcountry-wide class action.

Residents in park homes in both South Devon and Cornwall are
preparing for a possible litigation case against sites owner J&B
Small Park Homes.

Residents' associations at nine of the 19 sites owned by the
Taunton-based Smalls throughout the south west are understood to
be discussing a bid to seek legal damages.  Three sites in
Paignton and Chudleigh Knighton are involved in the initiative
which is led by Tony Turner, chairman of the St Dominic Park
Residents' Association in Cornwall.

Mr. Turner, from Harrowbarrow, Cornwall, said he formed the JBS
Residents Action Alliance in order to bring residents'
associations and their members across the various counties
together, to enable a class action for damages.

This means that rather than each resident bringing their own
individual legal proceedings, they could all be amalgamated under
one umbrella action.

Mr. Turner said he hoped to be able to make a group litigation
application in court within the next five months.  If successful,
class action would then follow.

He said: "It's important that people stand up and be counted and
are aware of this proposed class action.

"Before we can launch it we need to establish who is in it and how
much damages we would seek.

"We feel we have enough information and evidence across all the
sites the Smalls own to show that people have lost value on their
homes."

He said that there were concerns over the way the sites have been
maintained and issues over water and electricity bills.

The Smalls have denied the accusations against them, saying
through their lawyer David Osbourne that they considered
Mr. Turner a 'troublemaker'.

The planned legal action comes less than three months after the
Smalls were taken to court by Cornwall Council's trading standards
and agreed to trade lawfully after consenting to comply with
consumer protection legislation which stops them from using
'aggressive practices'.

The Smalls have managed the Beechdown Park and Hillside Park in
Totnes Road, Paignton, and the Buckingham Orchard in Chudleigh
Knighton for more than 10 years.

Some residents in the Paignton bungalow and caravan parks claimed
a number of issues involving sewage, site safety and maintenance
had not been dealt with to their satisfaction.

Cornwall Council took the Smalls to court because of complaints
from residents at other park homes.  A court order was made when
the Smalls agreed to trade lawfully.  The court order applies to
all 19 sites.

One of the residents of Hillside Park in Paignton said she hoped
the floodgates would open as a result of any class action.

The resident, who did not want to be named, said she was
interested in the class action because she had concerns over the
'quality of life' for residents on the caravan park.

Mr. Osborne, a barrister representing the Smalls, said they
provided accommodation to about 1,000 throughout the South West.

He said: "At all times J&B Small Park Homes applies the relevant
legislation when managing its parks, and in particular the
provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

"J&B Small Park Homes flatly denies the allegations contained in
the statements issued by Tony Turner."

He added: "Residents are encouraged to raise any concerns, real or
imagined, with the owners, and these concerns will be addressed in
a proper and professional way.

"Legal proceedings are only used as a last resort where agreement
cannot be reached."


JA SOLAR: Court to Consider Accord in Securities Suit on June 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York will consider final approval on June 24, 2011, of a
settlement in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
New York, according to JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.'s April 26,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2008, the Company was named as defendant in two
putative securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Ellenburg v.
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 10475
(filed on December 3, 2008) and Zhang v. JA Solar Holdings Co.,
Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 11366 (filed on December 31,
2008).  Huaijin Yang, the Company's former chief executive
officer, and Daniel Lui, the Company's former chief financial
officer and chief strategy officer, were also named as defendants
in the two actions (which are substantially identical), under
which the defendants were alleged to have committed securities
fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the United States
Securities and Exchange Act.  The Court consolidated the two cases
in April 2009.

In February 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle these securities class action lawsuits.  Under the terms of
the proposed settlement, a sum of US$ 4.5 million (less any award
of attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class that may be
approved by the Court) will be made available to shareholders who
may qualify for a distribution under the settlement.  As part of
the settlement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the action and
drop all claims against the Company and the individual defendants.
The settlement is subject to the Court granting final approval of
the settlement terms, which is set to be heard on June 24, 2011.


LENNOX INT'L: Hearing on "Keilholtz" Settlement Set for June 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
set June 2, 2011, as the hearing date for the final approval of
Lennox International Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit
filed by Keilholtz, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Lennox
Industries and Lennox International, Inc.  The lawsuit, which
involves no personal injury claims, alleges that certain of the
Company's single-pane, glass-front, gas fireplaces are hazardous
and that consumers were not adequately warned, and seeks economic
damages.  On February 16, 2010, the court issued an order
certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs.

On August 23, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding in this case and have reached
tentative terms for settlement of the case.  At the parties'
request, the court stayed the lawsuit shortly after the MOU was
signed.  On January 11, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.  The court set June 2, 2011 as the
date for the final approval hearing.


LEXISNEXIS SCREENING: Courthouse Corrects Error on Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service disclosed that an April 22 New Listing,
which reported on a federal class action against LexisNexis
Screening Solutions and Igloo Products, contained an incorrect
description of the allegations against Igloo Products.  The
complaint does not allege that Igloo sold any reports to
employers.  Rather, the complaint alleges that LexisNexis
Screening Solutions sold Igloo Products consumer reports that
illegally included "criminal history that predates the report by
more than seven years," and that Igloo then refused to hire the
lead plaintiff.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Continues to Defend NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit in New York alleging that the
Company released false and misleading statements in public filings
and other communications, according to the Company's April 26,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

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

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

On January 11, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims
except those based on the purchase of RBSG Series Q, R, S, T,
and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares.  The Court has
not yet considered potential grounds for dismissal of the
remaining claims, and RBS Group's motion to dismiss those
remaining claims is to be submitted on a date which is still to be
determined.  In January and February 2011, two new complaints were
filed asserting claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of ADRs.  A motion
to consolidate those claims with the preference share claims is
currently pending.

RBS Group has also received notification of similar prospective
claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no court
proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.

RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and
factual defences to the remaining and prospective claims and will
defend them vigorously.  RBS Group is unable to reliably estimate
the liability, if any, that might arise or its effect on the
Group's consolidated net assets, operating results or cash flows
in any particular period.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Defends Class Suits Over Securities Offering
------------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc continues to defend itself against
purported class action lawsuits alleging that the Company made
false or misleading disclosures in connection with relevant
offerings of securities, according to the Company's April 26,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

RBS Group companies, which is composed of The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary undertakings, including
National Westminster Bank Plc, have been named as defendants in a
number of purported class actions and other lawsuits in the United
States that relate to the securitisation and securities
underwriting businesses.  In general, the cases involve the
issuance of mortgage backed securities, collateralised debt
obligations, or public debt or equity where the plaintiffs have
brought actions against the issuers and underwriters of such
securities (including RBS Group companies) claiming that certain
disclosures made in connection with the relevant offerings of such
securities were false or misleading with respect to alleged "sub-
prime" mortgage exposure.

RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and
factual defences to these claims and will continue to defend them
vigorously.  RBS Group says it cannot at this stage reliably
estimate the liability, if any, that may arise as a result of or
in connection with these lawsuits, individually or in the
aggregate, or their effect on the Group's consolidated net assets,
operating results or cash flows in any particular period.


NETFLIX INC: Sued for Violating Video Privacy Protection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Mollet and Tracy Hellwig, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01629
(N.D. Calif. April 4, 2011), bring claims for violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 et seq., and
California Civil Code Section 1799.3 on behalf of all those who
subscribed to Netflix's services and streamed Netflix videos
from the Internet through any Netflix ready device, at any time
from two years prior to the dale of the filing of this Complaint
through the present.

Plaintiffs relate that by automatically displaying various
categorized lists of videos available for streaming from the
Internet which Netflix calls "queues", on its subscribers' viewing
screens without providing subscribers with any option or means to
delete, edit, hide, or otherwise prohibit others from viewing the
quests, Netflix improperly and knowingly disclosed subscribers'
personal identifiable information to everyone with access to the
subscriber's entertainment center such as subscribers' spouse,
children, parents, other family members, friends, guests,
visitors, roommates, or housemates, etc.

Meghan Mollett is a resident of Lansing, Michigan, while Tracy
Hellwig is a resident of Lancaster, California.  Plaintiffs are
Netflix subscribers who view streaming videos from Netflix on
their TV sets through a Netflix Ready Device.

Netflix, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its
headquarters at 100 Winchester Circle, in Los Gatos, Calif.,
claims to be the world's largest subscription service streaming
movies and TV episodes over the Internet and sending DVDs by mail.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          Theodore Bell, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: fait@whafh.com
                  tbell@whafh.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit in
Florida captioned Climo v. Office Depot, Inc, Steve Odland,
Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian, according to the Company's
April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief.  The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned Climo v. Office
Depot, Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian.
The allegations made in this lawsuit primarily relate to the
Company's previous financial disclosures and reports regarding
certain tax losses.  By way of background, on March 31, 2011,
Office Depot announced that the Internal Revenue Service had
denied the Company's claim to carry back certain tax losses to
prior tax years under economic stimulus-based tax legislation
enacted in 2009.  As a result, on April 6, 2011, the Company
restated its financial results to revise the accounting treatment
regarding its original tax position.  The periods covered by the
restatement were the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010, and the
quarters ended June 26, 2010 and September 25, 2010.


SEAWELL LTD: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seawell Limited continues to defend itself from various
stockholder class action lawsuits in Texas over its proposed
merger with Allis-Chalmers, according to the Company's April 26,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning on August 16, 2010, seven putative stockholder class
action petitions were filed against various combinations of Allis-
Chalmers, members of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors, the
Company, and Wellco in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
challenging the proposed merger and seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages, attorneys' and experts' fees, declaratory
and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
consummating the merger.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 12, 2010, by and
among Allis-Chalmers, the Company and Wellco Sub Company was
reached through an unfair process and that the consideration upon
which the Merger Agreement is premised is inadequate; that the
transaction was timed to take advantage of an overall decline in
the market price of Allis-Chalmers stock and that the Merger
Agreement unfairly caps the price of Allis-Chalmers stock; that
the Merger Agreement's "no shop" provision unreasonably dissuades
potential suitors from making competing offers; and that the
Merger Agreement otherwise unduly restricts Allis-Chalmers from
considering competing offers.

Beginning on August 26, 2010, various plaintiffs in these lawsuits
filed competing motions to consolidate the suits, to appoint their
counsel as interim class counsel and to compel expedited
discovery.  On September 16, 2010, the defendants filed joint
motions to stay the Texas lawsuits in favor of a first-filed
Delaware lawsuit, and opposing the motions for expedited
discovery.  There is no hearing date set for these motions.  The
parties to the Texas State Court actions have agreed that the
various defendants need not respond to the petitions until after
lead counsel is appointed, a consolidated amended petition is
filed and served or, alternatively, an active petition is
designated by lead counsel.


SEAWELL LTD: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Amended Del. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seawell Limited is awaiting a decision on its motion to dismiss an
amended complaint pending in Delaware Chancery Court challenging
its proposed merger with Allis-Chalmers, according to the
Company's April 26, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Beginning on August 16, 2010, three putative stockholder class
action suits were filed against various combinations of Allis-
Chalmers, members of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors, the
Company, and Wellco in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, challenging the proposed merger and seeking, among other
things, compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys' and
experts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibiting the defendants from
consummating the merger.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Merger
Agreement was reached through an unfair process and that the
consideration upon which the Merger Agreement is premised is
inadequate; that the transaction was timed to take advantage of an
overall decline in the market price of Allis-Chalmers stock; that
the transaction unfairly favors the Company; that the Merger
Agreement's "no shop" provision unreasonably dissuades potential
suitors from making competing offers ;and that the Merger
Agreement otherwise unduly restricts Allis-Chalmers from
considering competing offers.

On September 21, 2010, the plaintiffs in the three actions wrote
the Court seeking consolidation of the Delaware cases.  Defendants
did not oppose consolidation and took no position regarding lead
plaintiff.  On September 29, 2010, the Court granted the Motion to
Consolidate.  On September 16, 2010, the Company and Wellco
answered the first-filed Girard Complaint (designated as the
operative complaint post-consolidation).  Allis-Chalmers and the
members of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors answered the
consolidated complaint on October 4, 2010.

On January 26, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware
actions filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint For
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty along with a motion to expedite
proceedings.  The Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that the Merger Agreement was reached through an unfair
process and that the consideration upon which the Merger Agreement
is premised is inadequate; that the Allis-Chalmers board failed to
inform itself adequately of the highest price reasonably
available; that the Allis-Chalmers board was conflicted and, thus,
unable to fulfill its duties; that the transaction was timed to
take advantage of an overall decline in the market price of Allis-
Chalmers stock; that the transaction unfairly favors the Company;
that the Merger Agreement's "no solicitation" provision
unreasonably dissuades potential suitors from making competing
offers; that the Merger Agreement otherwise unduly restricts
Allis-Chalmers from considering competing offers and that a voting
agreement between the Company and Lime Rock Partners GP V, L.P.
improperly restrains Allis-Chalmers from engaging with third
parties regarding an alternative proposal.  The amended complaint
alleges that Allis-Chalmers, the Company, and Wellco aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

In addition, the Amended Complaint contains allegations that the
Registration Statement filed on Form F-4 filed with the SEC on
January 14, 2011, and amended on January 21, 2011, failed to
properly disclose all material facts in connection with the
proposed merger, in violation of Delaware law.

At a February 3, 2011 hearing, Vice Chancellor John W. Noble of
the Delaware Court of Chancery, denied plaintiffs' motion to
expedite proceedings.  On February 9, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Court of Chancery
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: 4th Amended "Santa Clara County" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth amended complaint and a claim for public nuisance filed
by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County,
California is pending, according to The Sherwin-Williams Company's
April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March
2000 and purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California other than the State and its
agencies.  The plaintiffs' asserted various claims including fraud
and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strict
product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a
special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of
California's Business and Professions Code.  A number of the
asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through
pre-trial proceedings.  On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeal,
Sixth Appellate District, among other determinations, reversed the
dismissal of the public nuisance claim for abatement brought by
the cities of Santa Clara and Oakland and the City and County of
San Francisco, and affirmed the dismissal of the public nuisance
claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties.  The proceedings
in the trial court were stayed pending the judicial resolution of
the plaintiffs' right to retain private counsel on a contingency
basis and, on March 16, 2011, the plaintiffs' filed their fourth
amended complaint and asserted a claim for public nuisance.


SIGMA ALDRICH: Class Suit Against Unit Still Pending in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against a unit of Sigma-Aldrich
Corporation in Ohio remains pending, according to the Company's
April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
Company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the Company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio.  The case was separated into the
following four phases: phase one -- existence of liability, phase
two -- quantification of any compensatory damages, phase three --
existence of any punitive damages, and phase four --
quantification of any punitive damages.  Class certification was
granted to phases one, three and four, but denied to phase two.
Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established before
the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.  The Company
has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence of liability.
The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.  There have been two phase two
compensatory damages trials involving 58 plaintiffs in total, with
the jury verdicts in those two trials establishing actual damages
of approximately two hundred thirty-three dollars per plaintiff.
A Court-ordered mediation of the various claims alleged in this
matter took place in March 2011.

The Company believes its reserves and insurance are sufficient to
provide for claims outstanding at March 31, 2011.  While the
outcome of the current claims cannot be predicted with certainty,
the possible outcome of the claims is reviewed at least quarterly
and reserves adjusted as deemed appropriate based on these
reviews.  Based on current information available, the Company
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity.  Future
claims related to the use of these categories of products may not
be covered in full by the Company's insurance program.


SIOUX FALLS, SD: May 16 Trial Set for Drain System Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Stubbe, writing for KSFY Action News, reports that a class
action lawsuit against the Sioux Falls sewer and storm drain
systems is headed for trial this summer.

The suit involves more than 200 families that had their homes
flooded in 2004.

The suit claims the city was negligent and knew that they did not
have adequate drainage in place to protect homes in basin areas of
the city.

A trial date has been set for May 16.


SONY COMPUTER: Faces 2nd Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Shinli Chi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Sony Network Entertainment America, Inc., et al., Case No.
11-cv-02081 (N.D. Calif. April 27, 2011), is filed on behalf of
all persons who subscribed to defendants' PlayStation Network and
Qriocity services, whose identities, personal and financial
information collected and maintained by SONY was breached on or
about April 17-19.

According to the Complaint, SONY failed to keep safe their
customers' sensitive, private, financial information safe and to
promptly notify its customers of the data breach, despite the
fact that SONY was aware of the breach for at least a week.  Even
when SONY did notify its customers of the breach, it did so
indirectly, by posting a message online, instead of contacting
each customer directly.

Ms. Chi, a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is a
PlayStation Network subscriber.

Sony Network Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Computer
Entertainment America, LLC, Sony Network Entertainment
Internation, LLC, and Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.,
are all headquartered in Foster City, California.

SONY sell and distribute the Sony PlayStation 3, a widely popular
entertainment and gaming platform, throughout the United States,
and operate the PlayStation Network, which has millions of
subscribers.  SONY operates the "Qriocity Services," which allow
owners of SONY devices such as the PS3 to download entertainment
content including video games, movies, TV shows, and music,
directly to those SONY devices.

On April 26, 2011, SONY announced that a hacker has obtained the
personal and financial information of PlayStation Network account
holders and subscribers of the Qriocity streaming services,
including, name, address, country, email address, birthdate,
PlayStation Network/Qriocity password and login, and handle/PSN
online ID; breached data also included, potentially, the
customers' profile data, including credit card numbers, card
expiration dates, purchase history and billing address (city,
state, zip), the customers' PlayStation Network/Qriocity password
security answers, as well as same data for any authorized
sub-accounts for customers' dependents.

According to the Complaint, the breach of this personal and
financial data occurred between April 17 and 19, 2011, but SONY
did not notify its customers indirectly until at least a week
later.  The notification on April 26, 2011, was not a direct
message to the customers but, rather, a post on
http://blog.us.playstation.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com


SONY COMPUTER: Faces 3rd Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
James Efird, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02115 (N.D. Calif. April 28, 2011), accuses defendants
of failing to adequately safeguard its customers' sensitive
personally identifiable information and financial data, including
but not limited to consumer credit card numbers, names, email
addresses, login credentials, password security questions and
answers, birthdates, and purchase history.

As a result of Sony's grossly inadequate security, plaintiff Efird
relates, one or more computer hackers gained access to the
sensitive PII and potentially credit card information of
approximately 77 million users of the Sony PlayStation Network.
Mr. Efird adds that Sony waited nearly a week after it learned of
the security breach before it publicly announced that its users'
personal information had been compromised.

During the interim period, Sony also shut down the PSN for all
registered users, including those who paid for premium or
additional games and services on the PSN, depriving these users of
products and services that they had purchased and could only
access through the PSN.

"Moreover, Sony unreasonably delayed in informing PSN users of the
security breach for nearly a week, preventing consumers from
taking prompt and reasonable steps to attempt to secure their
personal and Financial data," according to the Complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Bradley M. Baglien, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  maschenbrener@edelson.com
                  bbaglien@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com


STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm Ruger & Company, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

On August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint
captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et
al. pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 23, 2007, and October 29, 2007.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.  On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two
actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.  On January 11,
2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010.

The defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss
on April 26, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18,
2010.  Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on
July 19, 2010.  Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010.  On
February 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion
to dismiss in part and denying it in part.  The matter is ongoing
and no scheduling order has yet been entered.

The Company says punitive damages, as well as compensatory
damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims.
Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liability
accruals and applicable insurance coverage.  For claims made after
July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses
exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of
$10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be
brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000,
which are excluded from coverage.

The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the
product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and
unasserted claims.  While it is not possible to forecast the
outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of
management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel,
it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including
punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the
financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact
on the Company's financial results for a particular period.


SUBAYE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on April 29 disclosed that a lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Subaye, Inc. securities between the period of Dec. 29,
2009 to April 7, 2011.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Subaye and certain
individual defendants.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Subaye and its officers and directors for issuing
materially false and misleading financial statements to investors.
On April 7, 2011, the Company disclosed that its auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers Hong Kong, had resigned.  PwC identified
matters that may materially impact the fairness and reliability of
Subaye's quarterly financial information for the three months
ended December 31, 2010 and may cause PwC to be unwilling to rely
on management's representations.


TEMPUR PEDIC: Jacob's Plea for En Banc Review of Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for an "en banc" review of a circuit court ruling in an
antitrust class action lawsuit remains pending, according to
Tempur-Pedic International Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, Inc., or the
Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.  The action alleges a class of all purchasers of
Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States since January 5,
2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief.  Count Two of the
complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007, based on a
motion filed by the Company.  Following a decision issued by the
United States Supreme Court in Leegin Creative Leather Prods.,
Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the remaining two counts of the Antitrust Action on
July 10, 2007.  On December 11, 2007, that motion was granted and,
as a result, judgment was entered in favor of the Company and the
plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  On
December 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which was fully briefed.  On May 1, 2008, that
motion was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of their claims,
and the parties argued the appeal before the United States Circuit
Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11, 2008.  The Court
rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on December 2, 2010,
affirming the trial court's refusal to allow Jacobs to alter or
amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.  Jacobs has
subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an
"en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.

The Company says it continues to strongly believe that the
Antitrust Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against the
claims vigorously.  Based on the findings of the court to date and
an assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company
believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect
to this matter.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
Antitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance that
these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position or results of operation.
Accordingly, the Company cannot make an estimate of the possible
range of loss.


TWITTER INC: Sued Over Unsolicited SMS Notifications
----------------------------------------------------
Robin Wauters, writing for TechCrunch, reports that two California
residents, Drew Moss and Sahar Maleksaeedi, have filed a rather
peculiar class action lawsuit against Twitter.

Basically, they're suing over the fact that Twitter sent a
confirmatory SMS to their cellphone after they themselves used an
SMS command ('STOP') meant to turn off all phone notifications.

The two men allege that Twitter has engaged in unlawful conduct by
contacting them on their mobile phones without their consent,
which they say is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA) and an invasion of their privacy.

Here's the relevant part in the lawsuit documents:

    * At some point Plaintiffs decided that they no longer wanted
to receive text message notifications on their cellular telephone
from Defendant.

    * Plaintiffs then responded to Defendant's last text message
notification by replying "stop," as instructed by Twitter.

    * At this point, Plaintiffs withdrew any express or implied
consent to receive text message notification to their cellular
telephone that they may have previous given Twitter.

    * In response to receiving this revocation of consent,
Defendant then immediately sent another, unsolicited, confirmatory
text message to Plaintiffs' cellular telephones.

Messrs. Moss and Maleksaeedi says an "automatic telephone dialing
system" was employed to deliver the confirmatory message, and that
they incurred a charge for incoming calls as a result.  This is
illegal, the two men claim, because the message in question was
not sent for emergency purposes and without prior consent given.

According to the lawsuit documents, Messrs. Moss and Maleksaeedi
seek up to $1,500 in damages for each call in alleged violation of
the TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class number in
the "tens of thousands", would exceed the $5 million threshold for
federal court jurisdiction.  The suit is expressly not intended to
request any recovery for personal injury.


U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including United States Steel
Corporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict
the domestic production of raw steel and, thereby, to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.  The cases are filed as class actions and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

U. S. Steel says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits and
does not believe that it has any liability regarding these
matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


WEST PUBLISHING: Bar Review Course Class Action Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
If you paid for a BAR/BRI full-service bar-review course from
August 1, 2006, through and including March 21, 2011, a class-
action settlement reached in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California called Stetson, et al. v. West
Publishing Corporation d/b/a BAR/BRI and Kaplan, Inc., Case No.
CV-08-00810 R (Ex), may affect your rights.  This is a summary
notice published to supplement the written notice being mailed to
Class Members, which describes the nature of Plaintiffs' claims,
Class Members' right to file a claim for a portion of the
Settlement Fund, and the mailing to Class Members of fully
transferrable Discount Certificates that, under the Settlement,
would be redeemable toward the future purchase of Kaplan courses.

What Is This Case About?

BAR/BRI provides full-service bar-review courses throughout the
United States aimed at assisting law-school graduates to prepare
to take one or more of the bar examinations that are required by
each state and the District of Columbia before an attorney obtains
a license to practice law.  Plaintiffs alleged that BAR/BRI
violated federal antitrust laws by agreeing with Kaplan to limit
competition in the market for full-service bar review courses.
West is the owner of BAR/BRI and is a Defendant for that reason.
The other Defendant is Kaplan.  Plaintiffs alleged that BAR/BRI
agreed not to compete in the LSAT business and that Kaplan agreed
not to compete in the bar-review business, thereby allocating to
BAR/BRI the market for full-service bar-review courses in the
United States and preventing a competitive bar-review course from
being marketed and sold.

Plaintiffs also alleged that BAR/BRI unlawfully acquired and
maintained a monopoly in the market for full-service bar-review
courses in the United States and also conspired to monopolize that
market, all through a variety of means.  As a result, Plaintiffs
alleged that competition in the relevant market was adversely
affected.

Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and contend that their
conduct was legal.  The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.  While that dismissal was on appeal, the
parties entered into a proposed settlement.

What Is the Benefit of the Settlement to Me?

West has agreed to pay the total sum of $5,285,000, which sum
shall be used to make distributions to and for the benefit of
Class Members who submit properly completed and timely Claim Forms
if the Settlement is approved by the Court; to pay attorney's fees
and expenses approved by the Court; the costs of providing notice
to the Class; fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator, as
approved by the Court; and fees associated with the administration
and maintenance of the Settlement Fund, as approved by the Court.

In addition to the Settlement Fund established by West, Kaplan has
mailed one Discount Certificate to each Class Member.  Also, for
each additional full-service bar-review course other than a full-
service bar-review course for a price discounted by fifty percent
(50%) or more for which a Class Member has paid during the Class
Period, the Class Member is being mailed an additional Discount
Certificate.  Each Discount Certificate will be valid for thirty
(30) months, will be fully transferable (regardless of whether the
transferee is a Class Member and regardless of whether the
transfer is in the nature of a gift, a barter transaction, an
online auction or sale such as eBay or Craig's List, or any other
legal form of transaction), and will be redeemable toward the
future purchase of one qualifying Kaplan course, if the Settlement
is approved by the Court.

How Do I Make a Claim for a Portion of the Settlement Fund?

To receive a cash payment from the Settlement Fund, you must
complete and submit a Claim form and mail it, postmarked no later
than May 30, 2011.  To request a Notice and Claim Form, you may
call the Claims Administrator at 1-888-293-3337 and request that a
Notice and Claim Form be mailed to you, or you may download at
http://www.gilardi.com/barbrisettlement

What Is the Amount of the Cash Payment that I Will Receive from
the Settlement Fund?

Again, after deducting attorney's fees and costs, and an
additional amount to be paid to the Claims Administrator for
administering the Settlement (in an amount to be approved by the
Court), the Settlement Fund will be paid to eligible Class Members
who have timely submitted the Claim Forms.  Each such Class
Member's Award will be calculated based on (a) the amount paid by
each such Class Member as indicated on the Claim Form and (b) the
number and amount of timely claims submitted by all Class Members.
Each Class Member's Distribution Ratio will then be calculated by
dividing his or her claim by all timely and valid claims.  The
Class Member's Award is the product of his or Distribution Ratio
and the Settlement Fund (after deducting attorney's fees and costs
and an additional amount to be paid to the Claims Administrator
for administering the Settlement), assuming the Settlement is
approved by the Court.

What If I Have Questions?

The foregoing is only a summary of the proposed Settlement.  For
more detailed information, you may review the pleadings on file in
the Action, which pleadings may be inspected at the Clerk's
Office, United States District Court, 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, California 90012.  In addition, copies of this Notice;
the pleadings in the Action; the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement among Plaintiffs, West, and Kaplan; and other documents
are available at http://www.gilardi.com/barbrisettlement

Any questions you have concerning the Action, the Settlement, or
this Notice should be directed to the Claims Administrator or to
Class Counsel -- not to Court personnel.  You may contact the
Claims Administrator at the following address:

          Stetson v. West Publishing Corp.
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 808054
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8054

You can also obtain additional information by calling the Claims
Administrator at the following toll-free number: 1-888-293-3337.

You may contact Class Counsel as follows:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777

               - and -

          Perrin F. Disner, Esq.
          1855 Camden Avenue, Suite 3
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 742-7944


YUM BRANDS: Trial on Taco Bell RGM Suit Set for Feb. 6, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Taco Bell
Corp. alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws is
scheduled to begin February 6, 2012, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

YUM! Brands and subsidiaries comprise the worldwide operations of
KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-
American Food Restaurants (A&W).

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell Restaurant General Manager (RGM) purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California since August 2002.  The lawsuits
allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving
unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified
amounts in damages and penalties.  The cases were consolidated in
San Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
in San Diego on August 29, 2008.  On March 17, 2009, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to remand.  On January 29, 2010, the
court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion with
respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and Market Training
Managers but denied class certification on the meal period claims.
The parties participated in mediation on May 26, 2010, without
reaching resolution.  The court has ruled that this case will be
tried to the bench rather than a jury.  That trial is scheduled to
begin on February 6, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements.


YUM BRANDS: Hearing on Wage Suit Class Cert. Motion Set for June 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion for class certification in the lawsuit
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions has been scheduled
for June 6, 2011, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

YUM! Brands and subsidiaries comprise the worldwide operations of
KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-
American Food Restaurants (A&W).

On September 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the Company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case
was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked at
corporate-owned restaurants in California since September 2003 and
alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including
unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  The Company
was dismissed from the case without prejudice on January 10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General
Act complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the Company and other
related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman individually
and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.  The complaint
seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code.
On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class
action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California
very similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaid
overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements,
non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  On July 25,
2008, the case was removed to Federal Court in the Eastern
District of California.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the Company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.
The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
August 20, 2008.

On November 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the Company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The
case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other
California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure
to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage
statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay
minimum wage and unfair business practices.  The case was removed
to District Court and subsequently transferred to the Eastern
District of California.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
December 15, 2008, which was denied on January 20, 2009.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco
Bell and the Company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.  The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California
hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals
employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and
alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,
failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and
conversion.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court
and filed a notice of related case.  On June 18, 2009, the case
was transferred to the Eastern District of California.

On December 1, 2010, a putative class action styled Teresa Nave v.
Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Fresno division.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees who allegedly were
not timely paid all earned vacation at the end of their employment
and were denied required rest breaks.  Plaintiff additionally
seeks statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleges violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act (B&P Code Section 17200
et. seq.).  On December 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint adding three individuals as named plaintiffs.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, and
the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.  On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss,
stay or consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate was
granted on October 19, 2009.  On December 16, 2010, the court
ordered the Nave matter consolidated with In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010,
the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company
from the action.  The parties participated in mediation on
August 5, 2010, without reaching resolution.  Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on December 30, 2010, and the
hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion has been
scheduled for June 6, 2011.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
amend their class action complaint and to include an additional
named plaintiff.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by Marisela Rosales against
Taco Bell Corp. remains stayed in California, according to Yum!
Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,
2011.

YUM! Brands and subsidiaries comprise the worldwide operations of
KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-
American Food Restaurants (A&W).

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on
November 5, 2009, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stay
or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The parties stipulated to remand
of the case to Orange County Superior Court on March 18, 2010.
The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales
case on May 28, 2010, but required Taco Bell to give notice to
Rosales' counsel of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions
mediation.  The matter remains stayed.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Case Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by Domonique Hines against
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., remains stayed pending a decision from
the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for
employer provision of meal and rest breaks, according to Yum!
Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,
2011.

YUM! Brands and subsidiaries comprise the worldwide operations of
KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-
American Food Restaurants (A&W).

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee.  KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009,
in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on October 29, 2009.  Plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010, and KFC
filed a brief in opposition.  On October 22, 2010, the District
Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal
and rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a class
regarding alleged off-the-clock work.  On November 1, 2010, KFC
filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision
from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable
standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010.
On January 14, 2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and
stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California
Supreme Court.  No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Second Amended Suit vs. KFC Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint commenced by Lisa Harrison and Noe
Rivera against KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and KFC
Corporation in California remains pending, according to Yum!
Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,
2011.

On August 18, 2010, a putative class action, styled Lisa Harrison
and Noe Rivera v. KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and
KFC Corporation, was filed in California state court on behalf of
all former California hourly employees alleging various California
Labor Code violations, including failure to pay all vacation pay,
failure to reimburse business expenses (mileage and uniforms), and
waiting time penalties, as well as a claim of unfair competition.
KFC removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 4, 2010, and the case
was transferred to the Central District of California on
October 27, 2010.  On December 14, 2010, the court granted KFC's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third cause of action (Plaintiffs'
claim for reimbursement of expenses).  Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint on December 28, 2010.  The First Amended
Complaint contained the same causes of action as the initial
complaint, along with a request for penalties pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  In response to KFC's
stated intention to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
February 20, 2011.  No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Exemplar Trial in "Moeller" Suit Set for June 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
An exemplar trial in a class action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al.
v. Taco Bell Corp. is set to begin June 6, 2011, according to Yum!
Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,
2011.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California
Disabled Persons Act.  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an
injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply
with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the
District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the
minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the
Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of
the class.  Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of
100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and again
on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.  On December 16,
2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on
the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list of
remaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject of
a trial.  The court has ordered the exemplar trial to begin on
June 6, 2011.  The trial will be bifurcated and the first stage
will address equitable relief and whether violations existed at
the restaurant.  Taco Bell will have the opportunity to renew its
motion for summary judgment on those issues and the opportunity to
move to decertify the class.  A case currently pending before the
U.S. Supreme Court, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., may impact the
issue of class certification.  Depending on the findings in the
first stage of the trial and the court's rulings on motions for
summary judgment or class de-certification, the court may address
the issue of damages in a separate, second stage.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


YUM BRANDS: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a second amended complaint in the class action lawsuit
filed by Mark Smith in Colorado, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s
April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc., delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the
court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but,
in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law class
action claims under the laws of 16 different states.  Pizza Hut
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs
sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.  On August 9,
2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.  Pizza Hut
has filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
The court has yet to rule on Pizza Hut's motion.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Awaits Arbitration Plea Ruling in "Whittington" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell of America, Inc., and Taco Bell Corp. are awaiting a
ruling on their motion to compel arbitration of certain employees
in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Jacquelyn
Whittington in Colorado, according to Yum Brands, Inc.'s April 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours in a day.  The Company has been dismissed
from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its answer on
September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery,
which is currently on-going.  Taco Bell has moved to compel
arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


                            *********

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  * * *