CAR_Public/110509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 90

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Electronic Eavesdropping
ADVANCED BATTERY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in Louisiana Class Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Expects Final OK of Nationwide Class Action Deal
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Worker Classification Suit Still Pending

ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Agency Program-Related Suits
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Seroquel Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Obtains Final Nod of Settlements in Zoladex Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Supreme Court Reverses Decision in 340B Action

BOEING CO: Court Refuses to Reconsider Judgment in ERISA Suit
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status after Decertification
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in Illinois Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plavix Antitrust Suit Now Resolved
CALIFORNIA CULINARY: Aug. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

CARDTRONICS INC: Plea to Consolidate "Regulation E" Suits Pending
CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend "Fowler" Suit in California
COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Piechur Suit in Illinois
COINSTAR INC: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Washington
COINSTAR INC: Motion to Consolidate Illinois Class Suits Pending

COINSTAR INC: Continues to Face Three Class Actions in Calif.
DEER CONSUMER: To Seek Sanctions v. Law Firm Over Class Action
DOREL ASIA: Recalls to Repair 466,700 Wooden Bunk Beds
DR PEPPER: Discovery in "Koenig" Case against Unit Ongoing
DR PEPPER: "Jones" Suit against Unit Still Pending in Calif.

EL GRINGO: Recalls 300 Girl's Hooded Sweater With Drawstring
EPICOR SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Produce ESI
G.A. GERTMENIAN: Recalls 600 Toy Story 3 Bowling Game
GENZYME CORP: Fabry Patients File Class Action Over Cerezyme

GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Okay of O'Flynn Claim Settlement
GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in Calif.
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Misappropriating Users' Private Data
IMAX CORP: Court Appoints Merger Fund as Lead Plaintiff in NY Suit
IMAX CORP: Awaits Ontario Court's Ruling on Motion to Appeal

KOHLER CO: Recalls 10,000 Kohler Courage Engines
KRAFT FOODS: May 13 Hearing Set for Wage Class Action
LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Royalty Payment Class Suit Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Calif. Court Denies Conditional Class Cert.
MATTEL INC: Jury Sides With Bryant and MGA in "Bratz" Lawsuit

MEAD JOHNSON: Enfamil Class Settlement to Be Heard on Sept. 26
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merck-Related Suit in Calif.
NALCO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Deepwater Oil Spill Suits
NESTLE PHILIPPINES: Recalls Noodles Over Salmonella Contamination

NEUROMETRIX INC: Petition for Rehearing Pending in 1st Circuit
ONE WORLD: Recalls 300,000 Ryobi 1/4 Sheet Sanders
PRE-PAID: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Oklahoma
REVLON INC: Sullivan Suit Stayed Until April 15 Pending Discovery
SANDBOX MEDICAL: Recalls 6,000 Pacifier Clips Over Choking Hazard

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Judgment in Delaware Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Deepwater Horizon-Related Suit Remains Pending
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Garcia Suit in Florida
SERVICE CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Sands" Class Suit in Calif.
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Funeral Consumers Case Still Pending

SERVICE CORP: Continues to Face "Prise" Class Action Suit in Penn.
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Pennsylvania
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Bryant & Helm Suits in Calif.
SERVICE CORP: Court Decertifies Class in "Stickle" Suit
SONY COMPUTER: Faces Fifth Suit Over Private Data Breach

SONY NETWORK: Faces Sixth Suit Over Private Data Breach
TEREX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Class Suits in Conn.
TIME WARNER: Amended Antitrust Suits May be Filed Until May 13
TIME WARNER: LA Court to Reconsider TWC Request in "Swinegar" Suit
TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Brantley" Antitrust Suit Pending

TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Noia" Class Action in New York
TIME WARNER: Defends Class Suit Over Improper Phone Call Recording
TOWN SPORTS: Unit Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Two Suits
TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls 36,000 Beaded Curtains
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wins OK to Pay $13-Mil. to Settle Class Suit

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Antitrust Class Suits Still Pending
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Medical West Claims Denied
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Final OK of MDL Settlement
WEST BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Iowa
WRK ENTERPRISES: Recalls 453 Sea Elite Buoyancy Control Devices

WRK ENTERPRISES: Recalls 770 Edge & HOG Buoyancy Control Devices




                             *********

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Electronic Eavesdropping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Zuckerman, writing for Reuters, reports that a Wyoming
couple says in a federal lawsuit filed on May 3 that a computer
they leased from a national rent-to-own firm allowed the company
to secretly spy on them.

In the class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in
Pennsylvania, Brian and Crystal Byrd said that Aaron's, Inc., took
remote photographs of them, eavesdropped on their e-mail and
tracked their internet activities through a leased laptop equipped
with hidden spying devices.

They accuse Aaron's and DesignerWare LLC, the Pennsylvania-based
manufacturer and marketer of the spying products, of breaking
federal laws that protect computer privacy and prohibit electronic
eavesdropping.

The Byrds say they learned in December that the Dell laptop they
rented in July 2010 from an Aaron's franchise in Wyoming was
surreptitiously monitoring them.

The spying came to light after a disagreement led the manager of
the franchise to confront the couple with an unauthorized
photograph of Brian Byrd using the computer in his home.

When Brian Byrd demanded an explanation, the franchise manager
said that "he was not supposed to disclose that Aaron's had the
photograph," which was shot remotely by the laptop's built-in
webcam, according to the lawsuit.

The webcam was controlled by Aaron's through a concealed
electronic device the company installed and enabled on that and
other leased computers "to remotely gather, intercept, transmit
and store private electronic information and communications from
(rent-to-own) customers, including but not limited to photographs,
screen shots and keystrokes," the lawsuit alleges.

An attorney for Aaron's did not respond to a request for comment
on May 3.

The Georgia firm leases everything from electronics to furniture
and has more than 1,800 outlets in the United States and Canada,
according to its Web site.

The Byrds are seeking money for what they say was an illegal
invasion of their privacy.

They also are asking for court orders banning Aaron's from
installing and using the spying products and the sale of those
products by DesignerWare.


ADVANCED BATTERY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., and certain
of its officers.  The class action (11 civ. 2849), pending in the
Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased Advanced Battery securities during the
period from November 24, 2008, through and including March 29,
2011.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Advanced Battery securities
during the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff
for the class, you have until May 31, 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, Esq.
         POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
         Toll Free: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
claimed distribution relationships with certain manufacturers of
electric motorcycles and scooters were false; (2) the Company's
reported financial statements were grossly inflated by including
gross profit margins which were unrealistic for similar companies
in its industry; (3) the Company paid $1.5 million to acquire a
company that is non-existent; (4) the Company paid $20 million to
purchase a company, but failed to disclose the related party
nature of the transaction; (5) the Company paid $22 million to
acquire another company without disclosing that it was a bailout
of a related company; (6) the Company misrepresented that it
owned a Company subsidiary when it did not, or the Company failed
to disclose that it entered into a related party transaction with
the Company's Chairman and CEO which resulted in the owner of that
subsidiary being the Chairman and CEO, and not ABAT; (7) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 30, 2011, Varient View Research ("Varient") published a
report concluding "that the financial statements and management of
ABAT cannot be trusted and therefore the stock is worth zero."
Varient claimed, among other things, that: (1) the Chairman
transferred ownership of ABAT's key subsidiary to himself without
explanation or compensation; (2) ABAT leads investors to think
that it makes cutting-edge electric cars, when in fact it produces
cheap scooters and bicycles; and (3) several of ABAT's
distribution relationships are non-existent.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $1.50 per share, or
nearly 43%, to close on March 30, 2011, at $2.01 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  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.


ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in Louisiana Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is awaiting a supreme court ruling on the
issue of whether an insurance policy's anti-assignment clause
prohibits post-loss assignments, according to the Company's April
27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Allstate Corporation is vigorously defending a number of
matters in various stages of development filed in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, including individual lawsuits and a statewide
putative class action in Louisiana.  The Louisiana Attorney
General filed a putative class action lawsuit in state court
against Allstate and other insurers on behalf of Road Home fund
recipients alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all
damages owed under their policies.  The insurers removed the
matter to federal court.  The district court denied plaintiffs'
motion to remand the matter to state court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation
agreement.  In March 2009, the district court denied the State's
request that its claims be remanded to state court.  As for the
defendant insurers' motion, the judge granted it in part and
denied it in part.  Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual
claims, including the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty
claims, was granted.  Dismissal also was granted of all claims
based on the Valued Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on
the levee breaches finding that the insurers' flood exclusions
precluded coverage.  The remaining claims are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  The judge did not dismiss the class
action allegations.

The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds
that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee
of insureds because of anti-assignment language in the insurers'
policies.  The judge denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration on the assignment issue but found the matter was
ripe for consideration by the federal appellate court.  The
defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal to the
Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit has accepted review.  After the
Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand
the case to state court, asserting that the class claims on which
federal jurisdiction was premised have now effectively been
dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related case.  The Fifth
Circuit has denied the motion for remand, without prejudice to
plaintiffs' right to refile the motion for remand after the Fifth
Circuit disposes of the pending appeal.  On July 28, 2010, the
Fifth Circuit issued an order stating that since there is no
controlling Louisiana Supreme Court precedent on the issue of
whether an insurance policy's anti-assignment clause prohibits
post-loss assignments, the Fifth Circuit is certifying that issue
to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The issue has been briefed to the
Louisiana Supreme Court.  That court heard oral argument on the
appeal on March 14, 2011, and a decision is pending.

If the insurers are not successful on the appeal, the Company
anticipates the State to vigorously pursue the case once it
returns to the trial court.


ALLSTATE CORP: Expects Final OK of Nationwide Class Action Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is expecting final court approval of its
agreement to settle a nationwide class action alleging that it
failed to properly pay general contractors overhead and profit on
many homeowner structural loss claims, according to the Company's
April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

There are one nationwide and several statewide class action
lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that it failed to
properly pay general contractors overhead and profit on many
homeowner structural loss claims.  Most of these lawsuits contain
counts for breach of contract, as well as one or more counts
asserting other theories of liability such as bad faith, fraud,
unjust enrichment, or unfair claims practices.  General
contractors overhead and profit is an amount that is added to
payments on claims where the services of a general contractor are
reasonably likely to be required.  To a large degree, these
lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in
the industry, some of which have settled.  These lawsuits are
pending in various state and federal courts, and they are in
different stages of development.  The Company has reached an
agreement to settle on a 48-state basis the nationwide class
action.  This settlement received preliminary approval from the
court on December 6, 2010, and the case was certified as a class
for settlement purposes only.  The settlement was accrued as a
prior year reserve reestimate in property-liability insurance
claims and claims expense in 2010.  No other classes have been
certified against Allstate on this issue.

The hearing for final approval of the settlement was scheduled for
May 6, 2011.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Worker Classification Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court decision in a class action lawsuit
involving worker classification issues remains pending, according
to The Allstate Corporation's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Allstate has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims of employees involving worker classification
issues.  This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a
state wage and hour law.  In this case, plaintiffs sought monetary
relief, such as penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary
relief, such as injunctive relief.  In December 2009, the
liability phase of the case was tried, and, on July 6, 2010, the
court issued its decision finding in favor of Allstate on all
claims.  The plaintiffs are appealing the decision.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Agency Program-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend certain matters
relating to the Company's agency program reorganization announced
in 1999.  These matters are in various stages of development:

   * These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S.
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation
     under federal civil rights laws (the "EEOC I" suit) and a
     class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents
     alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
     Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and
     ERISA violations (the "Romero I" suit).  In 2004, in the
     consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court
     issued a memorandum and order that, among other things,
     certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of
     agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting
     the court's declaratory judgment that the release is
     voidable at the option of the release signer.  The court
     also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return
     to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in
     exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated
     that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis
     for claims of age discrimination."  The EEOC and plaintiffs
     asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum
     and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their
     request.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
     motions for summary judgment.  Following plaintiffs' filing
     of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that
     the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within
     the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at
     this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that
     the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the
     question of whether the matter is appealable at this time
     will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits
     of the appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the
     decision which granted the Company's summary judgment
     motions, remanded the cases to the trial court for
     additional discovery, and directed that the cases be
     reassigned to another trial court judge.  In January 2010,
     the cases were assigned to a new judge for further
     proceedings in the trial court.

   * A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by
     former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA,
     including a worker classification issue.  These plaintiffs
     are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
     Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
     contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.  This
     matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
     the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was
     reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005.  In June
     2007, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
     case.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal,
     the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating
     that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order
     within the meaning of the federal law and thus not
     appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit
     decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed
     and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at
     this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with
     the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit
     vacated the decision which granted the Company's motion to
     dismiss the case, remanded the case to the trial court for
     additional discovery, and directed that the case be
     reassigned to another trial court judge.  In January 2010,
     the case was assigned to a new judge for further proceedings
     in the trial court.

In these agency program reorganization matters, plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief.  Allstate
says it has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other
matters related to its agency program reorganization.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Bell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-16226 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 3, 2011), accuses the defendant of
engaging in the business of a collection agency without a license,
in violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1
et seq.

Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, which claims to acquire defaulted
debts originally owed to others, became regulated by the ICAA
since January 1, 2008, and was required to be licensed under the
ICAA.  Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, however, the Complaint
cites, did not obtain a license until January 30, 2008.

Plaintiff Geraldine Bell is an individual who resides in Cook
County, in Illinois.  Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, is a
limited liability company chartered under Delaware law which
maintains offices at 55 East Jackson Blvd., in Chicago, Illinois.

On January 29, 2008, while unlicensed, Asset Acceptance, LLC,
filed a lawsuit against plaintiff Geraldine Bell in the Circuit
Court of Cook County to collect an alleged debt incurred for
personal, family or household purposes, case number 2008-Ml-
106956.

Asset Acceptance, LLC obtained a judgment against Geraldine Bell.

The Appellate Court has held that legal actions filed by a
collection agency that did not have the requisite license are
illegal and void, and are not cured by the subsequent obtaining of
a license, the Complaint cites.  LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 1-09-
2773, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 228 (1st Dist. March 16, 2011).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Seroquel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court affirmed the dismissal order issued by a multi-
district litigation court of a putative nationwide class action
lawsuit alleging, among other things, that AstraZeneca PLC misled
consumers into believing that Seroquel was superior to lower-cost
alternative medicines, according to the Company's April 28, 2011
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2011, AstraZeneca completed a previously announced
settlement in principle to resolve Seroquel-related consumer
protection and deceptive trade practice claims under state law
with 37 states and Washington, D.C. as part of the National
Association of Attorneys General for $68.5 million in the
aggregate (as to which AstraZeneca previously had established a
provision).

As previously disclosed, the states of Alaska, Arkansas,
Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina and Utah have
sued AstraZeneca under various state laws generally alleging that
AstraZeneca made false and/or misleading statements in connection
with the marketing and promotion of Seroquel.  In February 2011,
the state of Utah filed an amended complaint after a federal judge
had dismissed its complaint in December 2010.

In March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the November 2008 dismissal by the Seroquel Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) court of a putative nationwide class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of all individual and non-
governmental third-party payers of Seroquel, which had alleged
that AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel for off-label uses and misled
class members into believing that Seroquel was superior to lower-
cost alternative medicines.

AstraZeneca discovers, develops, manufactures and markets
prescription medicines for six important areas of healthcare,
which include some of the world's most serious illnesses: cancer,
cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infection, neuroscience, and
respiratory and inflammation.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Obtains Final Nod of Settlements in Zoladex Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AstraZeneca PLC won a Massachusetts federal court's final approval
of two settlements resolving class action lawsuits filed by payers
of Zoladex, according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval of two previously announced
settlements that resolve class action lawsuits brought by
Massachusetts-only and multi-state classes of payers of Zoladex
for $13 million and $90 million (which amounts have been paid by
AstraZeneca).

AstraZeneca discovers, develops, manufactures and markets
prescription medicines for six important areas of healthcare,
which include some of the world's most serious illnesses: cancer,
cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infection, neuroscience, and
respiratory and inflammation.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Supreme Court Reverses Decision in 340B Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appeals court decision in a
class action filed by entities covered by a "340B Program,"
according to AstraZeneca PLC's April 28, 2011 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2011, the US Supreme Court reversed a decision of the US
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that covered
entities under the 340B program do not have enforceable rights to
sue as third party beneficiaries of the Pharmaceutical Pricing
Agreement, thereby dismissing this case and entitling AstraZeneca,
and the other defendants, to judgment as a matter of law.

AstraZeneca discovers, develops, manufactures and markets
prescription medicines for six important areas of healthcare,
which include some of the world's most serious illnesses: cancer,
cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infection, neuroscience, and
respiratory and inflammation.


BOEING CO: Court Refuses to Reconsider Judgment in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion
for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs in one of two class action
lawsuits against The Boeing Company alleging collective bargaining
agreement breaches and ERISA violations, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two pending class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of its former Wichita
facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit).  The first action
involves allegations that Spirit's hiring decisions following the
sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), violated the Company's
collective bargaining agreements, and constituted retaliation.
The case was brought in 2006 as a class action on behalf of
individuals not hired by Spirit.  During the second quarter of
2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing and
Spirit on all class action claims.  The plaintiffs then filed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the summary judgment decision
and the court denied that motion on March 28, 2011.

The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective
bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection
with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former
employees of the Wichita facility.  Discovery in the case is
ongoing.  Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all
losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising
from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005.  While Spirit
has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation in the
second action, the Company believes that Spirit is obligated to
indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second action.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status after Decertification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to represent participants and
beneficiaries in The Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan
filed an amended motion for class certification after the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals decertified the class, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On October 13, 2006, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.  Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.  During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in
the district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing
in 2008 to the case's class certification order.

On January 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district
court's class certification order and decertified the class.  The
Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.  On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
amended motion for class certification.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in Illinois Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ask a federal district court in Chicago to reconsider
its dismissal of their complaint against The Boeing Company
arising from a delayed flight in June 2009, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative
securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two
of its senior executives in federal district court in Chicago.
This lawsuit arose from the Company's June 2009 announcement that
the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a
need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the
aircraft.  Plaintiffs contended that the Company was aware before
June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled
due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and
that the Company's determination not to announce this delay
earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of the Company's stock
price for a multi-week period in May and June 2009.  On March 7,
2011, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On
April 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for
the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit.  Two of the suits were filed in
Illinois state court and have been consolidated.  The remaining
derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago.
No briefing or discovery has yet taken place in any of these
lawsuits.

The Company believes the allegations in all of these cases are
without merit, and it intends to contest the cases vigorously.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plavix Antitrust Suit Now Resolved
-------------------------------------------------
No appeals were asserted against the dismissal order in the
consolidated class action, In re Plavix Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, and the matter is deemed resolved, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company related in its April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions were filed against Bristol-Myers in U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, by various
plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains, various health and welfare
benefit plans/funds and individual residents of various states.
The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.  Plaintiffs were
seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive relief barring
the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.  The putative class
actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers were consolidated
under the caption In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, and the putative class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers were consolidated under the caption In re:
Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  Amended
complaints were filed on October 19, 2007.  Defendants filed a
consolidated motion to dismiss in December 2007.  The District
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all of the direct
purchaser claims.  No appeal was taken from that dismissal. In
January 2011, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to all of the indirect purchaser claims.  No
appeal was taken from that dismissal.  The matter is now resolved.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global biopharmaceutical
company, consisting of global pharmaceutical/biotechnology and
international consumer medicines businesses, whose mission is to
discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines that help
patients prevail over serious diseases.  It licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes and sells pharmaceutical
products on a global basis.  In March 2011, the Company announced
the Food and Drug Administration approval of YERVOY (ipilimumab)
for the treatment of patients with unresectable (inoperable) or
metastatic melanoma.  In January 2011, the Company and sanofi-
aventis announced that the FDA has granted the companies an
additional six-month period of exclusivity to market PLAVIX
(clopidogrel bisulfate).  Exclusivity for PLAVIX in the United
States is now scheduled to expire on May 17, 2012.


CALIFORNIA CULINARY: Aug. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Finz, writing for The San Francisco Chronicle, reports that
for the next 20 years, Matt Foist will be paying off his $46,000
in cooking-school loans, and all he says he has to show for it is
a useless chef's diploma, a nice set of knives -- but no job.

He said he'd be lucky to make $15 an hour in the culinary world,
even though the school told him he would land jobs with annual
salaries of $45,000.  So he's gone back to his software career.

The 46-year-old, who believes he was scammed by San Francisco's
California Culinary Academy, is one of the representatives of a
class-action lawsuit in which a $40 million settlement offer from
the cooking school is pending.

As part of the settlement, the 8,500 students who attended the
academy from 2003 through 2008 were notified last month that they
could be eligible for rebates of up to $20,000 each.  Tuition
prices are typically $46,000 for a 12-month program and an
additional three months of on-the-job training.

A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 22.

In addition, Career Education Corp., the parent company of CCA (it
also owns 15 other vocational colleges, including the Texas
Culinary Academy and Le Cordon Bleu), has agreed to eat $1.8
million in student debt.

But for many, it's not enough.  They say the dream they were sold
to be high-paid chefs was bogus.  And now they're faced with
enormous student loans to pay off -- some in excess of $100,000,
after deferrals and interest accruals.

"By the end I'd realized I had the wool pulled over my eyes,"
Mr. Foist said.  "I feel like it was a huge waste of time and a
huge waste of money.  And I'm one of the lucky ones who had a job
to go back to."

According to the suit, students and lawyers, the school
misrepresented its 98% job placement rate, exaggerated its
prestige in the industry and suggested that it had a selective
qualifying process.

"This rate is a lie," the suit states in regards to the school's
placement rate.  "The placement statistics included non-
professional entry level jobs like prep cooks, $8-$12 an hour line
cooks and Starbucks baristas.  That culinary degree was not a pre-
requisite or even relevant for many of the included jobs."

Ray Gallo, the lead plaintiff's attorney on the case, said, "In my
opinion, very few of the class members would have bought what CCA
was selling if they had the facts that I have today."

Suit Called 'distracting'

CEC denies the allegations and agreed to settle the suit only
because it was "distracting to our mission and extraordinarily
expensive to litigate," Mark Spencer, a spokesman for the company,
said in a statement.

"Since these allegations were made, we have carefully reviewed and
modified our policies and practices for reporting job placement
rates, admissions and advertising," he wrote.  "While we believe
our previous practices were legal, we have been very conservative
in modifying our policies and procedures to ensure that students
understand that we are not promising any specific job outcomes or
salaries."

According to information currently posted on CCA's Web site, the
school shows a 48% to 87% placement rate, depending on the program
and methodology used.

And despite the plaintiffs' claims that they were unable to find
decent jobs after leaving the school, a number of CCA graduates
during that period have gone on to successful positions, including
Jill Barton, who owns San Francisco's Le Crepe Shoppe; Gonzalo de
Castillo, who along with his brother, owns and operates San
Francisco's LaLola, a tapas bar; and Josh Becker, a chef at the
Ritz-Carlton South Beach's DiLido Beach Club in Florida.

CCA is not the first for-profit school to come under scrutiny.
There are 2,000 private vocational schools, ranging from
psychology and cosmetology to business administration and medical
training, receiving $24 billion in federal money each year,
according to government oversight investigations conducted last
year.  Some political leaders fear that high student loan default
rates for these institutions could echo the subprime mortgage
crisis.

The Obama administration has proposed a new rule that would
require for-profit career colleges to have better job placement
results and lower loan default rates or risk losing federal
student aid.  The "gainful-employment" rule has been controversial
on both sides of the aisle and has received resistance from
lobbyists and members of Congress, including House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.

The U.S. Department of Education is in the process of revising the
regulations and is close to a final recommendation that Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan said will be "much more thoughtful."

Four Senate Hearings

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has been seeking stringent rules.  He led
four Senate hearings to probe whether students and taxpayers are
being well served by the schools and found them sorely lacking.

"At their best, for-profit colleges provide flexible alternatives
for students to pursue postsecondary education," Mr. Harkin, who
is planning to write legislation to overhaul the system, said in a
statement.  "But unfortunately, some have become highly profitable
multi-state corporations while failing to provide the learning
environment and career services that will enable their students to
graduate and succeed."

Mr. Harkin's Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions found that for-profit schools have a high dropout rate.
Nearly 62% of Career Ed Corp.'s students withdrew from their
programs during the 2008-09 school year.

Statistics kept by the Department of Education also show that 47%
of all student loan defaults come from for-profit schools.  And in
many cases, the same programs are available at community and city
colleges for a lower price.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office released its
findings after conducting a sting operation on 15 for-profit
schools in six states, including California, Texas and Arizona.
Those schools, whose names were not released, were chosen partly
because they receive 89% or more of their revenue from federal
student aid.

The congressional watchdog group sent undercover investigators
posing as prospective students to each school and found that all
15 made deceptive and questionable statements, including
exaggerating potential salaries after graduation, giving sketchy
details about costs, and fudging the duration of the program.

Falsify Aid Forms

At four of the colleges, administrators encouraged the undercover
applicant to falsify his or her financial aid forms to qualify for
federal aid.  In one case, the admissions representative told an
applicant to fraudulently omit $250,000 in savings, according to
the report.

Often, the schools target the most vulnerable segment of the
population, said Robert Mills, another attorney representing the
CCA plaintiffs.  In the case of the Culinary Academy, many of the
students were children of immigrants, who had family members co-
sign for their loans thinking that they'd get lucrative jobs after
graduation, he said.

Traci Joyce, who graduated from CCA in 2003, said she'll carry her
$130,000 debt to her grave.

"This is the elephant I sleep next to every night," the 40-year-
old said.  "I can't get rid of it even if I declare bankruptcy.
Student loans are exempt.  So it's ruined my credit, kept me from
buying a house and putting money aside for my retirement."

'Making sandwiches'

Joyce, who worked in restaurants for 15 years and dreamed of being
a chef, said she was sold by the CCA's program the moment she
walked into the admissions office.

She said the admissions people made her feel like she had a good
chance of becoming an executive chef because of the school's
status in the industry.

But the only jobs she landed were positions at a catering company
and a butcher shop.  "I was making sandwiches," she said.

Finally she got her job back at Zachary's Chicago Pizza, but even
that was a demotion.  Before culinary school she was a manager,
now she works in the kitchen.

"If I could go back and change this, I never would have done it,"
she said.  "The most embarrassing part is what a farce I feel
like.  My friends and family introduce me as a chef.  I want to
say, 'Yeah, right.  I make pizzas.' "


CARDTRONICS INC: Plea to Consolidate "Regulation E" Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc.'s motion to consolidate four class action
lawsuits related to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act is pending,
according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

EFT networks in the United States are subject to extensive
regulations that are applicable to various aspects of the
Company's operations and the operations of other ATM network
operators.  The major source of EFT network regulations is the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, commonly known as Regulation E. The
federal regulations promulgated under Regulation E establish the
basic rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of consumers who
use EFT services and of financial institutions that offer these
services, including, among other services, ATM transactions.
Generally, Regulation E: (i) requires ATM network operators to
provide not only a surcharge notice on the ATM screens, but also
on the ATM machine itself; (ii) requires the establishment of
limits on the consumer's liability for unauthorized use of his or
her card; (iii) requires all ATM operators to provide receipts to
consumers who use their ATMs; and, (iv) establishes protest
procedures for consumers.  During the last year, the number of
putative class action lawsuits filed nationwide in connection with
Regulation E disclosures against various financial institutions
and ATM operators alike appears to have increased dramatically.
As of April 28, 2011, four lawsuits have been filed against the
Company alleging one or more violations of Regulation E on a small
number of specific ATMs operated by the Company in three states:

   (1) Sheryl Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
       similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc.; In the United
       States District Court of Tennessee-Western District;
       instituted September 2010;

   (2) Sheryl Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
       similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc.; In the United
       States District Court of Mississippi-Northern District;
       instituted September 2010;

   (3) Joshua Sandoval; individually and on behalf of all others
       similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc., Cardtronics,
       Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive; In the United States
       District Court of California-Southern District; instituted
       February 2011; and

   (4) Gini Christensen, individually and on behalf of all other
       similarly situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc., Cardtronics,
       Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive; In the United States
       District Court of California-Southern District; instituted
       February 2011.

In each of these cases, the plaintiffs allege that one or more of
the Company's ATMs were missing notices posted on or near the ATM
itself, which plaintiffs allege is a violation of EFTA and
Regulation E and thereby entitles all users of the ATMs to certain
statutory damages provided for within the EFTA regulations.  In
each lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking an order certifying a
class-action of previous users of each of the ATMs at issue,
statutory damages pursuant to 15 USC 1693m, costs of suit and
attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction.  The Company believes
that, among other things, the plaintiffs are misreading the EFTA
regulations and that the Company is in material compliance with
the requirements of EFTA and Regulation E.  Accordingly, the
Company believes that it has good defenses to each of these
lawsuits.  Furthermore, the Company believes that certain
affirmative defenses provided for by the EFTA and Regulation E
insulates the Company from liability in each lawsuit.  In
particular, the EFTA and Regulation E provide two "safe-harbor"
defenses: (i) under the "safe harbor" defense, the ATM operator
posted disclosure notices on each ATM, but the notice were removed
by someone other than the operator; and (ii) under the "bone fide
error" defense, the ATM operator has had a system in place to
ensure compliance with the EFTA and Regulation E.

Since the Company's defense in each of these lawsuits is
substantially the same, on March 30, 2011, the Company filed a
motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, to consolidate all
of these cases and any similar case hereafter filed to a single
case under the United States district court and otherwise
consolidating these actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
as permitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.  A ruling on this
motion is expected within the next 60-90 days.  Regardless of
whether the consolidation motion is granted, the Company believes
its defenses to these actions will prevent any of these cases from
having a material adverse impact on its business, and that none of
these currently filed lawsuits, either individually or in the
aggregate, will materially adversely affect the Company's
financial condition or results or operations.  However, if the
Company's defenses are not successful, these and other similarly
filed lawsuits could have a material adverse effect.


CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend "Fowler" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition.  The putative class
consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly
employees who worked for the company in California from April 2,
2004, to the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of
the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.
On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs
have appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant
overtime claim.  In addition to the plaintiffs' appeal of the
overtime claim, the claims currently remaining in the lawsuit
regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.  On June 16,
2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome
of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third
parties but related legal issues.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks
compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees.  CarMax, Inc., is unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could
result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.

No updates were reported in CarMax, Inc.'s April 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Piechur Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself from a
putative class action brought by Laurie Piechur in Illinois,
according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and other state statutes and is
seeking monetary damages and other relief as appropriate.  In
November 2009, redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.  In February 2010, this
court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  In May 2010, the
state court denied redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims, and also denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment.  The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.  Currently, no accrual had been established as it was not
possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because
this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could
make any such estimate.

Coinstar, Inc.'s core automated retail businesses include
redbox(R) self-service DVD rental and Coinstar(R) self-service
coin-counting brands. The company has approximately 31,800 DVD
kiosks and 18,800 coin-counting kiosks in supermarkets, drug
stores, mass merchants, financial institutions, convenience
stores, and restaurants.


COINSTAR INC: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc.
Securities Litigation is pending before a Washington federal
court, according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Coinstar and certain of its officers.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Five substantially similar complaints were later
filed in the same court.  Pursuant to an order of the court dated
March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated
as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint is yet to
be filed.  This case purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the period, depending on the complaint, between as early as
October 28, 2010, to as late as February 3, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  Plaintiffs claim
that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the purported class period.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.  The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.  Failure by
the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set
forth in the complaints could have a material adverse effect on
its business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, no accrual had been established as it was not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Coinstar, Inc.'s core automated retail businesses include
redbox(R) self-service DVD rental and Coinstar(R) self-service
coin-counting brands. The company has approximately 31,800 DVD
kiosks and 18,800 coin-counting kiosks in supermarkets, drug
stores, mass merchants, financial institutions, convenience
stores, and restaurants.


COINSTAR INC: Motion to Consolidate Illinois Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court ruling on its
request to consolidate class actions filed by Blake Boesky and
Kevin Sterk, according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq.  A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest.  Redbox has filed a
motion to consolidate the cases.  The Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit and intend to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.  Currently, no accrual had been
established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss
or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage
where the Company could make any such estimate.

Coinstar, Inc.'s core automated retail businesses include
redbox(R) self-service DVD rental and Coinstar(R) self-service
coin-counting brands. The company has approximately 31,800 DVD
kiosks and 18,800 coin-counting kiosks in supermarkets, drug
stores, mass merchants, financial institutions, convenience
stores, and restaurants.


COINSTAR INC: Continues to Face Three Class Actions in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing three class actions lawsuits
in Califorinia for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 with respect to the collection and recording of consumer
personal identification information, and violated the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged
violation of Song-Beverly.  A similar complaint alleging
violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally, was
filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John
Sinibaldi.  A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of
Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego, by a California
resident, Richard Schiff.  Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory
damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and interest.  Redbox has removed the Mehrens case
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
and the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company believes that the claims
against it are without merit and intend to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.  Currently, no accrual had been
established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss
or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage
where the Company could make any such estimate.

Coinstar, Inc.'s core automated retail businesses include
redbox(R) self-service DVD rental and Coinstar(R) self-service
coin-counting brands. The company has approximately 31,800 DVD
kiosks and 18,800 coin-counting kiosks in supermarkets, drug
stores, mass merchants, financial institutions, convenience
stores, and restaurants.


DEER CONSUMER: To Seek Sanctions v. Law Firm Over Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., on May 2 disclosed that the Company
received additional evidence of continuing illegal short selling
in DEER stock.

The Company believes its common stock has been manipulated in
collusion among "naked" short sellers, which may include U.S. and
off-shore based hedge funds/individuals that distribute false and
fabricated information concerning the Company via various Web
sites and blogs, including through SeekingAlpha.com, a Web site
owned by Seeking Alpha Ltd., an Israeli company.

In what appears to be a part of this attempted manipulation, a
purported class action complaint was filed against the Company by
The Rosen Law Firm.  This complaint is expressly based upon the
false and defamatory reports concerning the Company that were
authored by a fictitious character -- "Alfred Little" -- and
published by Seeking Alpha Ltd. even though Seeking Alpha Ltd. had
deleted certain false reports prior to the filing of the
complaint.  Litigation counsel for DEER has notified The Rosen Law
Firm that the complaint contains numerous false and inaccurate
allegations and the Company will seek sanctions against the
plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm if the complaint is not withdrawn
in its entirety.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

During the months of March and April 2011, the Company believes
that an attempted market manipulation scheme by illegal short
sellers acting in collusion caused DEER's share price to plunge
from more than $11 per share on March 21 to as low as $6.12 on
April 4 on heavy daily volume, causing a temporary loss of
approximately $165 million in market capitalization for DEER's
shareholders.

To protect DEER's shareholders and as a matter of good corporate
governance, DEER has repeatedly confirmed that its filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its latest
annual report, 10-K filing with audited financials are accurate
and are in full compliance with SEC disclosure requirements.  DEER
has also affirmed its 2011 earnings guidance and a dividend
policy.  In addition, DEER paid initial quarterly cash dividend of
$0.05 per share on April 14 to shareholders of record on March 31.
DEER has hosted numerous visits by independent research analysts,
institutional investors and global investment banks.  The Company
notes that DEER's share price has recovered approximately 66%
since April 4 to a closing price of $10.14 on April 29.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL SHORT SELLING:

At present, a large number of DEER shares sold short have failed
to settle for 30 consecutive settlement days, which indicates
naked short positions that still exist on May 2.  The number of
such shares has exceeded 700,000 shares on certain trading days.
Also, according to publicly available market data, DEER's common
stock has been on the list of Nasdaq's "Threshold" securities
under the SEC REG SHO rules, for at least 30 consecutive
settlement days, indicating failure to settle trades among
securities clearing firms for more than 30 consecutive settlement
days.

As one part of a broader plan to take steps to protect the Company
and its shareholders from this apparent illicit short selling
activity, DEER's litigation counsel has communicated and will
continue to communicate with the legal and compliance departments
of various securities clearing and custodian firms to warn them of
possible illegal short selling activities still taking place in
DEER's common stock and to discover information concerning share
delivery obligations and compliance with U.S. securities laws.
DEER is optimistic about receiving full cooperation from these
registered clearing firms.

DEER intends to discover and take legal actions against all
parties that assist and abet in the illegal short selling
activities in DEER.

"ALFRED LITTLE" DOES NOT EXIT, USES FABRICATED BIOGRAPHY TO
DEFRAUD THE GENERAL PUBLIC

The Company believes that "Alfred Little" is a fictitious
character -- a disguise used by one or more illegal short sellers
in the short sale scheme against DEER and other public companies.
According to the Company's investigation, "Alfred Little" is not a
real person.  His "professional biography" published on his Web
site and on SeekingAlpha.com was fabricated, with the purpose to
mislead and defraud the investing public.  "Alfred Little's"
published biography includes claims that he had years of
experience as an auditor at Deloitte, worked for large global
companies and had years of investment experience in China,
published a book on China, etc. cannot be verified. Furthermore,
in the attack on DEER, "Alfred Little" published a 3 month old
prepaid phone card that was never used as his purported contact
number for concerned investors.  In addition, "Alfred Little"
quoted statements from several Chinese government officials as
witnesses to support his various false allegations against DEER.
These Chinese officials in fact do not exist.  "Alfred Little"
further made false allegations on his "channel checks" of Chinese
retail stores while he failed to disclose his naked short
positions in DEER and ignored DEER's repeated public disclosure
about the Company's product distribution process as well as its
corporate structure.  "Alfred Little's" various articles, timely
published in collusion with short sellers who immediately sold
large blocks of DEER's stock in market orders that intentionally
created fear in the general public to drive down DEER's share
price.  Short sellers have profited handsomely at the expense of
DEER's thousands of shareholders.  DEER will continue its vigorous
investigation and discovery of the network of illegal short
sellers that have damaged the reputation and destroyed value in
U.S. listed public companies.

DEER TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST PURPORTED "CLASS ACTION"
PLAINTIFF'S LAW FIRM

On April 29, 2011, "The Rosen Law Firm" filed a "class action"
complaint against the Company on behalf of "James Rose", an
individual who allegedly purchased 2,000 shares of DEER common
stock during 2010.  The Company strongly denies the allegations in
the complaint and counsel for DEER has already notified The Rosen
Law Firm that the Company intends to seek sanctions under Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against The Rosen Law Firm
if the complaint is not withdrawn in its entirety.

The Company also notes the following concerning the purported
class action complaint by The Rosen Law Firm:

1.  The complaint was filed in total disregard of the Company's
prior warnings concerning illegal short selling activities in
DEER.

2.  The complaint is explicitly based on the false and defamatory
reports authored by an "Alfred Little" and published by Seeking
Alpha Ltd.  But the Company believes that "Alfred Little" does not
exist and is a fictitious character -- a disguise used by one or
more illegal short sellers in the short sale scheme against DEER
and other companies publicly traded on U.S. stock exchanges.

3.  The complaint includes false and defamatory allegations that
were contained in an article published on SeekingAlpha.com that
Seeking Alpha Ltd. removed from the web-site after receiving true
and accurate information from the Company.  The Company believes
that The Rosen Law Firm's willingness to include such allegations
in the complaint under such circumstances demonstrates extreme
recklessness and an utter disregard of the truth.

DEER IS FOCUSED ON GROWING A STRONG COMPANY

DEER's management remains totally committed to corporate
governance and enhancing long term shareholder value through the
Company's continued pursuit of corporate excellence and business
expansion.  DEER looks forward to another year of record sales and
earnings growth in 2011.

               About Deer Consumer Products, Inc.

Deer Consumer Products, Inc. -- http://www.deerinc.com/-- is a
NASDAQ Global Select Market listed U.S. company with its primary
operations in China.  Deer has a 16-year operating business as
well as a strong balance sheet.  Operated by Deer's founders and
supported by more than 100 patents, trademarks, copyrights and
approximately 2,000 staff, Deer is a leading provider of "DEER"
branded consumer products to Chinese consumers and leading
vertically integrated manufacturers of small home and kitchen
appliances for global customers.  DEER's product lines include
series of small household and kitchen appliances as well as
personal care products designed to make modern lifestyles easier
and healthier.  With a large brand name global clientele and a
rapidly expanding China domestic market footprint, Deer has
enjoyed rapid growth in revenues and earnings in recent years.


DOREL ASIA: Recalls to Repair 466,700 Wooden Bunk Beds
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Dorel Asia SRL, of Barbados, announced a
voluntary recall of 445,000 wooden bunk beds in the United States
and 21,700 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wooden side rails that run from the headboard to the footboard
and hold the bunk bed's mattress in place can split and cause the
bunk bed to collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

CPSC and Dorel Asia have received 23 reports of the side rails
cracking or breaking, including seven reports of minor bruises or
abrasions.

The model number, date of manufacture, "Made in Vietnam" and the
firm's phone number are printed on a white label located on one of
the bunk bed rails.  Some of the labels include the name "Dorel
Asia SRL."  Only these models, colors and manufacturing date
ranges are included in this recall to repair:

   Model Number               Color      Manufacture Date Range
   ------------               -----      ----------------------
   TG2070 (242/07/1472)       Espresso     07-2008 to 12-2008
   TG2070-1CE (249/13/0024)   Espresso     08-2008 to 12-2008
   TG2070W (242/07/1468)      White        06-2008 to 11-2008
   WM1848                     Pine         08-2006 to 07-2007
   WM1848R                    Pine         07-2007 to 12-2007
   WM1848R2                   Pine         01-2008 to 02-2009
   WM1848R2DC                 Pine         07-2008 to 03-2009
   DA1026W                    White        07-2004 to 01-2008
   DA1026RW                   White        03-2008 to 03-2009
   DA1026P                    Pine         08-2004 to 01-2008
   DA1026RP                   Pine         03-2008 to 03-2009

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11214.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Walmart, Kmart and Target stores and online at
http://www.walmart.com/, http://www.kmart.com/and
http://www.target.com/from September 2004 through September 2009
for about $190.

Consumers should immediately contact Dorel Asia to receive a free
repair kit.  Until consumers obtain and install the repair kit,
consumers should take down the bunk beds and only use them as
separate twin beds.  For additional information, contact Dorel
Asia at (800) 295-1980 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.dorelasia.com/


DR PEPPER: Discovery in "Koenig" Case against Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding on plaintiffs' remaining claims in the
class action lawsuit commenced by Frances Von Koenig against
Snapple Beverage Corp. in California, according to Dr Pepper
Snapple Group, Inc.'s April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Snapple Beverage Corp. has been sued in various jurisdictions
generally alleging that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and/or deceptive.  These cases have been
filed as class actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on
behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various
labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of amounts
paid for product and treble damages.  The cases and their status
are:

   * In 2007, an action was filed in the United States District
     Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of
     plaintiffs, Evan Weiner and Timothy McCausland.  Class
     certification of this case was denied and summary judgment
     for Snapple was granted on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
     The plaintiff did not appeal.

   * In 2009, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Frances Von
     Koenig in the United States District Court, Eastern District
     of California.  A similar suit filed was consolidated with
     the Von Koenig case.  Snapple's motion to dismiss was granted
     as to the plaintiffs' advertising claims.  Discovery is
     proceeding on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted in each of these cases and will defend itself vigorously.
However, there is no assurance that the outcome of these cases
will be favorable to the Company.


DR PEPPER: "Jones" Suit against Unit Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries,
Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc., was sued by Robert Jones in the
Superior Court in the State of California (Orange County),
alleging that it failed to provide meal and rest periods and
itemized wage statements in accordance with applicable California
wage and hour law.  The case was filed as a class action and
captioned Robert Jones v. Seven Up/RC Bottling Company of Southern
California, Inc.  The parties have reached a tentative settlement
in the case, pursuant to which the Company denied any liability or
wrongdoing and reserved all rights, but agreed to a compromise to
end litigation and to pay $4.25 million, which amount was accrued
as of June 30, 2010.  The settlement is subject to the
satisfaction of the following conditions: (i) court approval and
(ii) execution of an acceptable settlement agreement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


EL GRINGO: Recalls 300 Girl's Hooded Sweater With Drawstring
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
El Gringo Imports of Seattle, announced a voluntary recall of
about 300 girl's hooded sweater with drawstring.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The hooded sweaters have drawstrings through the hood which can
pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children.  In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated
into an industry voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent
children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and
waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is a hand-knitted wool sweater with a hood in
sizes 1 through 10.  The sweater has a drawstring in the hood with
multi-colored yarn tassels.  The sweaters are multi-colored with a
front zipper.  "El Gringo Imports" is written on a black neck tag.
Picture of the recalled garments is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11210.html

The hooded sweaters were manufactured in Ecuador and sold at Pike
Place Market in Seattle from November 2009 to August 2010 for
between $20 and $25.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard or contact El Gringo Imports
for instructions on how to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact El Gringo Imports toll-free at (877) 278-1434
between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.elgringoimports.com/or e-mail the firm at
michael@elgringoimports.com


EPICOR SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software Corporation continues to defend itself from
pending class actions relating to its merger with affiliates of
Apax Partners, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement with affiliates of
Apax Partners, four putative stockholder class actions were filed
in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, and two other
suits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court.  The actions filed in
California are entitled, Kline v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed
Apr. 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr.
11, 2011), Frazer v. Epicor Software et al., (filed Apr. 15,
2011).  The actions pending in Delaware are entitled Field Family
Trust Co. v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 12, 2011)
and Hull v. Klaus et al., (filed Apr. 22, 2011).  Amended
complaints were filed in the Tola and Field Family Trust actions
on April 13, 2011, and April 14, 2011.  Plaintiff Kline dismissed
his lawsuit on April 18, 2011.  The pending suits allege that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
due care, among others, by seeking to complete the sale of the
Company to Apax and its affiliates through an allegedly unfair
process and for an unfair price and by omitting material
information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 that the Company filed on April 11, 2011, with the
SEC.  The complaints also allege that Epicor, Apax, and Sub aided
and abetted the directors in the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiffs seek certification as a class and relief
that includes, among other things, an order enjoining the Tender
Offer and Merger, rescission of the Merger, and payment of
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes the
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the
actions.  There can, however, be no assurance of the outcome of
these lawsuits.

Based in Irvine, California, Epicor Software delivers business
software solutions to the manufacturing, distribution, retail,
hospitality and services industries.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Produce ESI
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Kerschberg, writing for Forbes, reports that United States
Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd of the Northern District of
California compelled Facebook to produce electronically stored
information ("ESI"), not merely "provide access" thereto on a
commercial Web site that allowed it to restrict class action
plaintiffs from reviewing those materials properly.  The court's
order granting the plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production in In
re Facebook PPC Advertising Litigation (Apr. 6, 2011) analyzed
three important issues: (1) the importance of ESI Protocols, (2)
production of ESI in native formats, and (3) production of
documents versus "access" to them.

Facts

Three named plaintiffs brought a class action against Facebook for
breach of contract and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.  Each of the plaintiffs advertised on Facebook
and alleged that Facebook misrepresented the quality of its click
filters, which are meant to screen out certain clicks ("invalid
clicks") that do not meet specified requirements designed so that
advertisers are not billed for them.  When the plaintiffs were
charged, they sued.

Discovery disputes ensued -- surprise surprise -- and plaintiffs
filed their Motion To Compel in relation to three of these
disputes.

    * Plaintiffs allege that Facebook refused to agree to an ESI
Protocol to set forth the manner and form of electronic
production, including an agreement on search words or phrases,
custodians, time frames and/or other terms that the parties would
employ in producing ESI.

    * Facebook uploaded its discovery responses to a commercial
Web site in a manner that seriously limited the plaintiffs'
ability to review them.

    * The documents to which Facebook provided access, as well as
others that were actually produced, were not in their native
format, and thus were unsearchable and unusable.

ESI Protocols

ESI Protocols have become an important part of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 26(f)'s mandate that litigants "meet and
confer" in order to consider the nature and basis of their
respective claims and defenses.  While ESI Protocols are not
mandatory, they encourage meaningful discourse that shapes how a
case proceeds.  Such discussions are vital not only to reduce
litigation costs, but also to save courts' precious time by honing
the scope of lawsuits.

Facebook argued that an ESI Protocol in this case would impose
"rigid, up-front requirements" because "forcing the parties to
anticipate and address all potential issues on the form of
electronic production would likely have the result of frustrating
and slowing down the discovery process."  The court correctly
deemed this argument "speculative," adding:

"The argument that an ESI Protocol cannot address every single
issue that may arise is not an argument to have no ESI Protocol at
all."

Successful electronic discovery depends on open and good faith
communication when the parties "meet and confer."  This requires
that opposing counsel cooperate to identify custodians and likely
sources of relevant ESI, as well as the costs and steps required
to access that information.  Contrary to Facebook's assertions,
this hardly slows the process.  Parties are able to narrow a
lawsuit's scope to preclude overbroad discovery requests for
"oppressive, tactical reasons . . . rather than legitimate
[ones]."  In place of gamesmanship, cooperation substitutes
transparency and communication.  According to Peak Discovery,
an e-Discovery support company:

Careful bilateral negotiation during the "Meet & Confer" period
prior to the review process can prevent unnecessary cost and
needless disputes with your adversary.  No review, no matter how
efficient and accurate, can be a success if the parties are
constantly arguing before a judge.

Surviving the Perfect e-Discovery Storm 27 (Legal Management
June/July 2010).

Moreover, meeting and conferring requires lawyers to know who
their client's data custodians are, something that's not evident
to all counsel.  However, the notion that Facebook's large,
prestigious law firm couldn't obtain such information from
Facebook (of all companies) is, well . . . a stretch.  Let's leave
it at that.

Having considered these arguments, the court emphasized that
"electronic discovery should be a party-driven process" and that
that Rule 26(f) requires that the parties meet and confer to
develop a discovery plan.  (Given this requirement, the fact that
a well-versed litigant such as Facebook would simply flout the
mandate of Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 26(f) lends credence
to the notion that it did so merely to starve the plaintiffs of
oxygen.)

Methods of ESI Production

The court next considered the plaintiffs' request that all ESI
already produced be re-produced in its native format? Why? Because
Facebook produced documents in non-searchable, unusable formats,
including an 18,000-page customer complaint database in PDF format
even though Facebook does not maintain the database in that
format.  Producing dynamic documents such as this one in static
format is discovery abuse.  And had the parties met and conferred
in the first place, the question of format could have been
addressed then, with all the proper procedural mechanisms under
Rule 26(f) for Facebook to have objected had it so desired. It
opted out.

Next, Facebook did not produce all ESI to the plaintiffs directly,
but rather uploaded certain documents to a commercial Web site,
Watchdox.com.  That site, which seems fairly sophisticated, forced
the plaintiffs to review the documents on a computer.  They could
not be printed, which Facebook attempted to justify by arguing
that it feared that confidential documents would be turned over to
a third party.  The court found Facebook's reasoning to be "purely
speculative," especially in light of a two-tiered protective order
that accommodated the need for confidentiality.  Some documents
had expiration dates after which the plaintiffs could no longer
view them.  And Facebook rendered many of the documents on the
site non-searchable or non-annotatable.  Did this really happen?

In footnote 2 of its order, the court set forth what I believe to
be the most important proposition of its Order:

"As plaintiffs point out, if Facebook wanted to place documents on
a secure Web site such as Watchdox.com, it could have raised that
issue before it agreed to a stipulated protective order that
clearly contemplates producing documents to the other side, not
merely providing access to them."

The court, thus, ordered Facebook to produce any documents that
had been uploaded to Watchdox.com in their native searchable
formats.  The same applied to any documents that had not been
uploaded but were unsearchable.


G.A. GERTMENIAN: Recalls 600 Toy Story 3 Bowling Game
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
G.A. Gertmenian and Sons, LLC, of Los Angeles, announced a
voluntary recall of about 600 Toy Story 3 Bowling Game.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The red paint used on some bowling pins has been measured to be in
excess of the maximum allowable level of 90 ppm, a violation of
the federal lead paint standard.

G.A. Gertmenian and Sons, LLC has received no reports of incidents
or injuries.

This recall affects Toy Story 3 Bowling Game Rugs with a batch
marking of JA 148.  The recalled item contains six white plastic
bowling pins with two red stripes painted on the necks, one black
plastic ball, and a 68 inch x 26 inch nylon game rug with a print
of the character Buzz Lightyear on the front.  The batch marking
JA 148 appears on the bottom front of the packaging just above the
bar code, and is also located on the tag attached to the rug.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11217.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart Stores in the U.S. between September 1, 2010 and
September 25, 2010 for about $18.

Consumers should stop using the bowling pins immediately and
contact the manufacturer for a free replacement set.  For
additional information, contact G.A. Gertmenian and Sons LLC toll-
free at (888) 224-4181 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers may also email
Gertmenian@Gertmenian.com for instructions on receiving
replacement bowling pins.


GENZYME CORP: Fabry Patients File Class Action Over Cerezyme
------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that patients with
a painful, potentially fatal disease claim Genzyme, which makes
the only FDA-approved drug for Fabry disease, sold Fabrazyme vials
contaminated with glass, rubber and steel, and rationed the drug
so that patients receive only half the approved dosage, while
newly diagnosed patients are denied it altogether.

The federal class action says the rationing stems from Genzyme's
unending production problems.

It claims that Genzyme unreasonably used a publicly funded
invention by "restricting administration to below the FDA approved
dose" and by denying new Fabry patients access to the drug.

The class also sued Mount Sinai Medical School, which developed
Fabrazyme, an enzyme replacement therapy, with help from a grant
from the National Institutes of Health.

The plaintiffs suffer from Fabry disease, a life-threatening
genetic illness caused by an enzyme deficiency.  Fabry can cause
pain throughout the body, and without treatment often leads to
premature death from complications such as renal disease, heart
attack and stroke.

While there is no cure for Fabry, Fabrazyme has been able to treat
Fabry patients effectively, the class says.  It adds that
Fabrazyme, which is distributed only by Genzyme in the United
States, is the only enzyme replacement therapy for Fabry approved
by the Food and Drug Administration.

But "sometime before June 2009, Genzyme decreased production of
Fabrazyme as a result of a viral infection in their Allston
Landing, Mass. manufacturing plant," according to the complaint.

It continues: "Genzyme caused the viral infection of Fabrazyme by
failing to clean and sterilize their bioreactors between
production batches, and thus introduced the virus by cross-
contamination.

"Specifically, Genzyme would use the same bioreactors to produce
both Fabrazyme and a different biological drug, Cerezyme, which is
used to treat another enzyme deficiency termed Gaucher disease.

"The Cerezyme production batches were initially contaminated with
the non-human virus Vesivirus 2117.

"Genzyme then cross-contaminated Fabrazyme cultures by failing to
properly clean and sterilize the bioreactors before switching them
for Fabrazyme production.

"The Allston Landing facility was the subject of a FDA warning
letter that followed an inspection in September and October of
2008.  One of the FDA's concerns was controls to protect against
microbial contamination.

"Further, in November 2009, Genzyme produced Fabrazyme vials that
contained contaminants of particulate steel, glass and rubber.

"The FDA initiated action against Genzyme which resulted in a
consent decree in May 2010, which included a $175 million dollar
fine and oversight of the manufacture of Fabrazyme for at least 7
years."

The production problems caused Genzyme to start rationing the drug
in June 2009, the class claims.

"In June 2009, as a direct result of its reduced production of
Fabrazyme, Genzyme unilaterally implemented a rationing plan for
its reduced supply of Fabrazyme for the then known Fabry patients,
wherein Genzyme unilaterally limited then known Fabry patients to
receiving only less than one-third (1/3) of the recommended
prescribed dose."

Five of the named plaintiffs say they were receiving the
recommended dose of Fabrazyme until then, "but after June 2009,
Genzyme reduced their respective doses to less than one-third of
the FDA approved dose pursuant to the Genzyme Rationing Plan."

They add that "By and through the Genzyme Rationing Plan Genzyme
also unilaterally barred any newly diagnosed patients from
receiving Fabrazyme," even though Fabry patients require immediate
treatment.

Around January 2010, Genzyme "slightly increased doses to only 50
percent of the recommended prescribed dose," and five named
plaintiffs say they got that dose.

The class claims that Mt. Sinai knew of Genzyme's rationing plan
and "consented to Genzyme's banning the drug to new patients
despite having a duty to protect against the invention's
unreasonable use and non-use under the Bayh-Dole Act."

The patients say that neither Genzyme nor Mt. Sinai applied for
FDA approval of the rationing plan.  And they say Genzyme did not
test whether the reduced dose is safe or effective, and ignored
the adverse effects that could result from the rationing plan.

A 2010 study by the European Medical Agency (EMA) found that the
lower dosage caused more strokes, renal disorders and heart
attacks in Fabry patients, according to the complaint.

The class says EMA's study "showed that patients not only had a
return of life-threatening symptoms but also an accelerated course
of deterioration on the lowered dose."

They say Genzyme failed to disclose the EMA study results, and
that several Fabry patients died as a result of the shortage.

The class failed to persuade the NIH to override the Fabrazyme
patent and to let other companies make the drug, the complaint
states.

They seek compensatory and punitive damages for negligence,
product liability, breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices
and loss of consortium.

A copy of the Complaint in Hochendoner, et al. v. Genzyme
Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____ (W.D. Pa.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/03/Prescript.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Kurzweg, Esq.
          C. Allen Black, Jr., Esq.
          KURZWEG LAW OFFICES
          Bruno Building 5th Floor
          945 Liberty Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 258-2223


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Okay of O'Flynn Claim Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., is awaiting court approval
of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by David
O'Flynn, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2011.

On October 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the
California Superior Court in Orange County against Golfsmith USA,
LLC, asserting denial of meal and rest breaks, failure to timely
pay final wages or commissions and failure to provide itemized
employee wage statements in violation of the California Labor
Code.  During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company reached an
agreement to settle the O'Flynn claim, subject to court approval.
The Company's provision for estimated losses on this legal action
of $0.2 million, net of insurance, has been recorded in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities as of April 2, 2011.


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2010, Ed Leo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against Golfsmith
International Holdings, Inc., in the California Superior Court of
San Diego County in connection with a Women's Night promotional
event held by the Company on March 25, 2010. The plaintiff's claim
is based on alleged violations of the Unruh Act, California
legislation which has been interpreted to prohibit promotional
activities that discriminate on the basis of certain protected
classes.  While the plaintiffs in this action have alleged that
the Company engaged in conduct that was discriminatory and
actionable, the Company disputes these claims and intends to
vigorously contest the lawsuit.  At this time, it is not possible
to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any,
that might result from an adverse resolution of this matter.

No updates were reported in Golfsmith International Holdings,
Inc.'s April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2,
2011.


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Misappropriating Users' Private Data
---------------------------------------------------------
Juliann King, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Google, Inc., Flurry, Inc., and MobClix, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-02167 (N.D. Calif. May 3, 2011), accuses the defendants,
without notice or authorization, of acquiring, tracking, compiling
into profiles, merging with other profile data, and selling
information from plaintiff and other class members' Android
Devices, in breach of their contract with the plaintiffs, and in
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1030, and the Computer Crime Law, California Penal Code Section
502.

Plaintiff, a resident of the State of California, relates that she
downloaded and used numerous free and paid apps (computer
application software) to her Android Device during the period
December 1, 2008, to the present, little knowing that the apps
contained information-harvesting code from mobile advertising
companies.  Plaintiff and other class members' use of the apps
triggered the imbedded code, causing detailed information
about plaintiffs -- including their whereabouts and unique mobile
device identifiers -- to be sent to the mobile advertising
companies.

Defendant Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with offices at
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, in Mountain View, California.  Google
is the owner of Admob, a mobile advertising network.

Defendant Flurry, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 282 2nd Street, in San Francisco,
California.  Flurry is an advertising content and analytics
provider for mobile apps.

Defendant MobClix, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1117 South California Avenue, in
Palo Alto,  California.  MobClix is a mobile ad exchange,
functioning as an intermediary between apps and numerous mobile ad
networks and also providing analytics for mobile device apps.

Android Devices are mobile devices, such as notebook computers and
tablet computers, that run on Google's Android operating system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1050
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


IMAX CORP: Court Appoints Merger Fund as Lead Plaintiff in NY Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court appointed The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff
and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel
in a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York involving
IMAX Corporation and its directors, according to the Company's
April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc., as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 2, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2003,
and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged
in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements during the class period regarding the
Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations, and
failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's
revenue recognition practices.  The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 10, 2007.  On September 16, 2008,
the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying the
motion.  On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the
amended complaint.  On October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  Fact discovery on the merits
commenced on November 14, 2008.  On March 13, 2009, the Court
granted a second prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester
Capital Management, Inc., as the lead plaintiff and issued an
order denying without prejudice plaintiff's class certification
motion pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.  On
June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration
and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P., as the lead
plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Westchester Capital Management, Inc.,
appealed this decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied its petition on October 1, 2009.  On
April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion on
June 10, 2010, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010.  On
December 20, 2010, the Court denied Snow Capital Investment
Partners' motion and ordered that all applications to be appointed
lead plaintiff must be filed within 20 days of the decision.  Two
applications for lead plaintiff were filed, on January 10, 2011,
and January 12, 2011, respectively.  On April 14, 2011, the Court
issued an order appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff
and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel.
The Company is not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at
this time.  The Company will vigorously defend the matter,
although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of
such proceedings.  The Company's directors and officers insurance
policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages
awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits and deductibles.

With over 38,000 customers, 128 road reps and product showing in
20 showrooms worldwide, IMAX continues to provide home and garden
accessories imported from 12 countries around the globe.


IMAX CORP: Awaits Ontario Court's Ruling on Motion to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation is awaiting an Ontario court's ruling on its
motion to appeal previous decisions entered in a securities class
action alleging violations of Canadian securities laws, according
to the Company's April 28, 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 September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006, and August 9, 2006.  The lawsuit is in an early
procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company
is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  For
reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the
Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any binding conclusions on the factual or legal
merits of the claim.  The Company has brought a motion seeking
Court approval to appeal those decisions and it is not known when
the Ontario court will release a decision on that motion.  The
Company believes the allegations made against it in the statement
of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter,
although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate
outcome of such proceedings.  The Company's directors and officers
insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses
incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential
damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits and
deductibles.

With over 38,000 customers, 128 road reps and product showing in
20 showrooms worldwide, IMAX continues to provide home and garden
accessories imported from 12 countries around the globe.


KOHLER CO: Recalls 10,000 Kohler Courage Engines
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary recall of
10,000 Kohler Courage Engines.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A wire connector on the engine can become disconnected causing the
operator's seat switch to fail.  When this happens, the blades
will not shut down, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Kohler Courage twin-cylinder engines sold
with three brands of lawn tractors: Husqvarna, Cub Cadet, and
Troy-Bilt.  The vertical-shaft gasoline engines range in
horsepower from 20 to 25.  Engines included in this recall have
serial numbers with the first five digits beginning with 41028
through 41056.  Serial numbers can be found on the black engine
cover.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11215.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the U..S.A. and sold at
Lowe's, Tractor Supply Company stores, and by authorized Cub Cadet
dealers nationwide from February 2011 through April 2011 for
between $1,500 and $5,700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lawn tractors and
contact an authorized Kohler dealer or the retail location where
the tractor was purchased for a free inspection and repair.  For
additional information, contact Kohler Co. at (800) 451-2294
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kohlerengines.com/


KRAFT FOODS: May 13 Hearing Set for Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a hearing in a proposed class action brought against Kraft
Foods Global by workers at its Granite City plant has been
continued.

The parties agreed to move the hearing after informing Madison
County Chief Judge Ann Callis on April 26, according to the case's
docket sheet.

Judge Callis had been set to hear motions in the suit April 27.

The hearing will now be held on May 13, at 9:00 a.m.

Lead plaintiff, Joan Jones, proposes to lead a class of her fellow
workers at the plant against Kraft for its alleged failure to pay
wages the class members were entitled to.

The class would consist of between 400 to 500 members.

The suit seeks damages in the amount of the unpaid wages and other
relief.

Earlier in April, Ms. Jones filed a motion seeking to strike
Kraft's affirmative defenses.

Ms. Jones called Kraft's defenses, which include arguments that
the class action is barred by the statute of limitations and other
grounds, "a back door attempt at a motion to dismiss."

Kraft denies the existence of any class and that the alleged
members were entitled to wages they claim weren't paid.

Ms. Jones and the potential class is represented by:

          Joseph W. Phebus
          PHEBUS & KOESTER LLP
          136 West Main Street
          Urbana, IL 61801
          Telephone: (217) 337-1400
          E-mail: jwphebus@phebuslaw.com

Kraft is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Garlough
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654-5313
          Telephone: (312) 832-5702
          E-mail: jgarlough@foley.com

The case is Madison case number 11-L-082.


LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Royalty Payment Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC, has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery in
this dispute is ongoing and is not complete.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Calif. Court Denies Conditional Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied, without prejudice, a motion for conditional
class certification of non-exempt employees throughout the country
filed by plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit, according
to Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.'s April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 3, 2009, a former store manager and an assistant
store manager filed a putative class action suit against LLI in
the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Alameda.
The Plaintiffs allege that with regard to certain groups of
current and former employees in LLI's California stores, LLI
violated California law by failing to calculate and pay overtime
wages properly, provide meal breaks, compensate for unused
vacation time, reimburse for certain expenses and maintain
required employment records.  The Plaintiffs also claim that LLI
did not calculate and pay overtime wages properly for certain of
LLI's non-exempt employees, both in and out of California, in
violation of federal law.  In their suit, the Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, certain statutory penalties, costs,
attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  LLI removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  In an order dated March 2, 2011, the court denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification of non-exempt employees throughout the country.

LLI says it intends to continue to defend the claims in this suit
vigorously.  While there is a reasonable possibility that a
material loss may be incurred, the Company cannot estimate the
loss or range of loss, if any, to the Company at this time.


MATTEL INC: Jury Sides With Bryant and MGA in "Bratz" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The jury in the litigation related to Carter Bryant and MGA
Entertainment, Inc., ruled against Mattel, Inc., on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets, according to the Company's
April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant, a former Mattel design
employee.  The suit alleges that Mr. Bryant aided and assisted a
Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc., during the time he was
employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual and other
duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Mr. Bryant asserted
counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in which Mr.
Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Mr. Bryant also removed
Mattel's suit to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened as a
party-defendant in Mattel's action against Mr. Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Mr. Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Mr. Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was
proper and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in
creating Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed suit against Mattel in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  MGA's
action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress
dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.  The suit alleges, among other things, that
certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials
in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon products,
themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for various MGA
product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also asserts that
various alleged Mattel acts with respect to unidentified
retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged MGA and that
various alleged acts by industry organizations, purportedly
induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's suit alleges that MGA
has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach or exceed tens of
millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive damages,
disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Mr. Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Mr.
Bryant's purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's
Confidential Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements
with its employees, and Mr. Bryant's claims for declaratory
relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Mr. Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
RICO violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Mr. Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Mr. Bryant in connection with the resolution,
Mr. Bryant agreed that he was and would continue to be bound by
all prior and future Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and
infringement, including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Mr. Bryant to
Mattel, aided and abetted Mr. Bryant's breaches of his duty of
loyalty to Mattel, aided and abetted Mr. Bryant's breaches of the
fiduciary duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property
for their own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA,
Larian, and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's
copyrights in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and
awarded Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against
the defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Mr. Bryant during his Mattel employment were
Mattel's property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls
infringe Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's
award of damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an
accounting of post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated
the stay of the December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent
specified by the Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion  --
if not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be
vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of Mr.
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing suit.  The Court granted that motion as to the
wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice, and
as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.
The Court will determine whether an award of exemplary damages is
appropriate, which may not exceed twice the $88.5 million award of
compensatory damages.  Additionally, attorney's fees may be
awarded; however, the amount, if any cannot be determined at this
time.

Mattel does not believe that it is probable that any of the
damages awarded to MGA will be sustained based on the evidence
presented at trial and, accordingly, a liability has not been
accrued for this matter.  Judgment has not yet been entered, and
post-trial motions and appeals have not yet been filed.  The Court
has stated that it will address the parties' post-trial motions,
including motions for a new trial, for judgment as a matter of
law, for exemplary damages, and for attorneys' fees and costs, in
May 2011.

The Court will rule separately on the parties' claims for unfair
competition under California Business & Professions Code Section
17200.  In February 2011, MGA commenced litigation in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that Mattel's conduct in response to MGA's sale of Bratz
violated both the federal antitrust statute and the California
Business & Professions Code, and constituted abuse of process
under California law.  Mattel believes these claims are without
merit.  Mattel has moved to dismiss these claims and intends to
vigorously defend against them.


MEAD JOHNSON: Enfamil Class Settlement to Be Heard on Sept. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida court will consider final approval of a class action
settlement resolving complaints with respect to Enfamil infant
formula on September 26, 2011, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
disclosed in its April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Eight putative consumer class action lawsuits have been filed
against the Company's subsidiary -- Mead Johnson & Company, LLC --
two of which also name the Company as a defendant.  The Company
either has sought or will seek to be dismissed from these two
suits.  MJC successfully sought consolidation of all of these
suits by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which
transferred the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  On March 18, 2011, that Court granted
preliminary approval of a nationwide class settlement that will
resolve all claims and all of the pending suits.  The Court has
scheduled its hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of
the settlement for September 26, 2011.  The settlement allows
consumers who purchased Enfamil LIPIL infant formula between
October 13, 2005, and March 31, 2010, to seek infant formula or
cash.  The amount each consumer can receive depends on how long
the consumer purchased the formula; consumers who received their
formula through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program are
not eligible to participate.  If the total amount claimed falls
below $8.0 million (valuing the product at retail value), MJC will
donate the difference in the form of product to appropriate
charities.  If the amount of claims otherwise would exceed $12.0
million, benefits will be prorated.  MJC also has agreed not to
oppose attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel (not to
exceed $3.6 million) and to pay costs of notice and settlement
administration.

The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company or MJN manufactures, distributes
and sells infant formulas, children's nutrition and other
nutritional products.  MJN has a broad product portfolio, which
extends across routine and specialty infant formulas, children's
milks and milk modifiers, pediatric vitamins, dietary supplements
for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, and products for metabolic
disorders.  These products are generally sold to wholesalers and
retailers and are promoted to healthcare professionals, and, where
permitted by regulation and policy, directly to consumers.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit pending in
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck & Co., Inc., and the Company.  The plaintiffs, who seek to
represent a national class of retail pharmacies that had
contracted with the Company, allege that the Company has conspired
with, acted as the common agent for, and used the combined
bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the
market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.  The
plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
Company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.  The plaintiffs assert
claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages
and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is currently pending before the Multidistrict
Litigation Court.

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Merck and the Company.  In their Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company engaged in price
fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
other Pharmacy Benefit Managers -- PBMs -- to restrain trade in
the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to customers of
retail pharmacies who participate in programs or plans that pay
for all or part of the drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted
as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of
plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege
that, through such concerted action, Merck and the Company engaged
in various forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among
other things, setting reimbursement rates to such pharmacies at
unreasonably low levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
has been granted, but this matter has been consolidated with other
actions where class certification remains an open issue.

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed
against the Company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with
the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly
purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual
allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action.
The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits and injunctive relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge.  The motion was granted in August 2006.  These
actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in certain actions is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merck-Related Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2004, a lawsuit captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against
the Company and Merck & Co., Inc., in the Superior Court of
California.  The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of
all California pharmacies that had contracted with the Company and
that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck,
allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a 1995
consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company
failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the Company and Merck had failed to prevent
nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck and the
Company from being disclosed to each other.  The plaintiffs
further allege that, as a result of these alleged practices, the
Company had been able to increase its market share and
artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail
pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs
from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do business
with the Company had been fixed and raised above competitive
levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully
obtained profits and injunctive relief.  In the complaint, the
plaintiffs further allege, among other things, that the Company
acted as a purchasing agent for its plan sponsor customers,
resulting in a system that serves to suppress competition.

No updates were reported in Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s
April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2011.


NALCO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Deepwater Oil Spill Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Nalco Holding Company remains a defendant in numerous lawsuits in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In June, July and August 2010, Nalco Company was named, along with
other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class action
complaints filed in either the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana (Parker, et al. v. Nalco
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-SS; Harris, et
al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJB-SS),
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division (Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et
al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00397-B) or the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola
Division (Walsh, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-
cv-00143-RV-MD; Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT) on behalf of various potential classes
of persons who live and work in or derive income from the Coastal
Zone.  In April 2011, Nalco was named in an additional class
action: Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., (E.D.La.).  The
Parker, Lavigne and Walsh cases have since been voluntarily
dismissed.  Each of the remaining actions contains substantially
similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things,
negligence relating to the use of the Company's COREXIT dispersant
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The
plaintiffs in each of these putative class action lawsuits are
generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

                      Other Related Claims

In July, August, September, October and December 2010, Nalco
Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in eight complaints filed by individuals in either the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ezell
v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW), the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division (Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No.
1:10-cv-00472-M; Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-
cv-00471-CG N; Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No 10-cv-00532-N),
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida, Tallahassee Division (Capt Ander, Inc. v. BP, plc, et
al., Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS), the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern
Division (Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-
00432-HSO-JMR) or the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Chatman v. BP Exploration &
Production, Case No. 10-cv-04329; Brooks v. Tidewater Marine LLC,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00049). In April 2011, Nalco was also named
in Best v British Petroleum plc, et al., (MDL No. 2179), Black v.
BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. Civ. No. 2:11-cv-867,
(E.D.La.); Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Civ. No.
2:11-cv-863, (E.D.La.); and Coco v. BP Products North America,
Inc., (E.D.La.).  The complaints generally allege, among other
things, negligence and injury resulting from the use of the
Company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.  The complaints seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Chatman
case was voluntarily dismissed.  Nalco, the incident defendants
and the other responder defendants have also been named as a third
party defendant by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its
affiliates (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771) and more
recently as a third party defendant by Cameron International
Corporation and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. in the multi-
district litigation (the MDL).

All of the cases pending against Nalco Company have been (or are
expected to be) administratively transferred for pre-trial
purposes to a judge in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana with other related cases under In
Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.).
Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in the MDL, the claims
have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known
as the "B3 Bundle").  Plaintiffs are required by Judge Barbier to
prepare a list designating previously-filed lawsuits that assert
claims within the B3 Bundle regardless of whether the lawsuit
named each defendant named in the B3 Bundle master complaint.  The
Company has received a draft list from the plaintiffs' steering
committee.  The draft list identifies fifteen cases in the B3
Bundle, some of which are putative class actions.  Six cases
previously filed against Nalco are not included in the B3 Bundle.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.  The Company also believes that
it has rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including
legal expenses) from third parties.  However, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, its involvement in these
matters in the future or the potential for future litigation.


NESTLE PHILIPPINES: Recalls Noodles Over Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Philippines, Inc., voluntarily recalls all MAGGI Rich Mami
Noodles Beef & Chicken Flavors from stores nationwide, following a
routine quality test, which found traces of salmonella in two
batches of MAGGI Rich Mami Noodles Beef Flavor.

The product recall is a precautionary measure being taken to
ensure the safety and quality of Nestle's products and in the
interests of its consumers, which it regards as of paramount
importance.

The concerned batches have the lot codes 11020598A2 and
11030598A1.  The lot code numbers are found at the back of the
product pack, between the "Best Before" date and the ingredients
list.

Nestle says it has immediately initiated an extensive
investigation to determine the cause of this contamination, and
initial findings suggest flavoring ingredients as the cause.
MAGGI Rich Mami Noodles come with flavoring in sachet, which is
used to enhance the noodle's flavor.

According to Nestle, it has stopped production of all MAGGI Rich
Mami Noodles pending the completion of the investigation.

No consumer concerns related to the consumption of MAGGI Rich Mami
Noodles have been reported.  The product is safe to eat if the
cooking instructions are followed.

Consumers who have purchased MAGGI Rich Mami Noodles are requested
to contact Nestle hotline 8980061 (for Metro Manila) and 1-800-
100-637853 (toll-free for provincial areas).  The hotlines are
open 24 hours a day from Mondays to Sundays.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Petition for Rehearing Pending in 1st Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neurometrix, Inc.'s response to a petition for rehearing en banc
with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was
filed on April 25, 2011, according to the Company's April 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.  The
petition was filed after the First Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of an amended class action complaint against the
Company.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants.  These two actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between October
27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information to the
investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.  On
January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  On
December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit on January 6, 2010.  Oral arguments on the
plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on
September 15, 2010.  On March 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
amended complaint.  On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing en banc with the First Circuit, seeking a
rehearing of their appeal by the full members of the First Circuit
court. The defendants' response to that petition was filed on
April 25, 2011.

The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company
cannot guarantee that the outcome of the lawsuit will be favorable
for the Company or that it will not be material to its business,
results of operations, or financial position.  However, the
Company does not believe that a loss related to this litigation is
probable.  Accordingly, no accrual relating to this matter has
been recorded at March 31, 2011.


ONE WORLD: Recalls 300,000 Ryobi 1/4 Sheet Sanders
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
One World Technologies, Inc., of Anderson, South Carolina,
announced a voluntary recall of 300,000 Ryobi 1/4 sheet sanders.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Pieces of the fan can break off from the fan assembly and be
ejected from the product, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 31 reports of broken fan pieces being
ejected from the sander, including two reports of minor
lacerations.

This recall involves Ryobi brand sheet sanders, model S651D.  The
sander is blue and black.  The word "Ryobi" is on the left side.
The model number can be found on the data plate located on the
side of the sander just below the handle.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11216.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot, Gardner, Inc., Tap Enterprises, Inc., Direct Tools Factory
Outlets, Amazon.com, and ToolKing.com from June 2005 through
August 2010 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sander and
contact One World Technologies to receive a free replacement
sander.  For additional information, contact One World
Technologies Customer Service at (800) 597-9624 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.ryobitools.com/


PRE-PAID: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting its agreement to settle the claims
asserted in the putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed by
Andrew D. McMullan and James E. McCurdy relating to the Company's
merger with MidOcean PPL Holdings Corp. and PPL Acquisition Corp.,
according to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Oklahoma District Court of Oklahoma County by
Andrew D. McMullan and James E. McCurdy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company and
each member of its board of directors.  The complaint generally
alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders by agreeing to sell the Company pursuant to an unfair
process and at an unfair price.  The complaint alleges that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
candor, good faith and independence and have acted to put their
personal interests ahead of the interests of the Company's
shareholders.  The complaint also alleges that the Company aided
and abetted such breaches.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
rescission of any barriers to the maximization of shareholder
value and attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Oklahoma District Court of Pontotoc
County by Czar Fredrik D. Reyes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against the Company, each member of its
board of directors, and MidOcean PPL Holdings Corp., and PPL
Acquisition Corp. (the MidOcean entities).  The complaint
generally alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to sell the
Company pursuant to an unfair process and at an unfair price.  The
complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing, and that Pre-Paid and the MidOcean entities have aided
and abetted such breaches.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company agreed to onerous and preclusive deal protection devices
as part of the merger, including a no solicitation provision.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages and costs of the
action, including attorneys' fees.  On March 2, 2011 the complaint
was amended to add allegations that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties of candor to the shareholders and
that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 23, 2011, is misleading and omits material information.

On March 3, 2011, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Oklahoma District Court of Pontotoc County by
Troy Ball, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against the Company, each member of its board of
directors, officers Randy Harp and Kathleen S. Pinson, and the
MidOcean entities.  The complaint generally alleges that the
merger is unfair and inequitable to shareholders and that the
directors and the officers breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith and candor and have acted to put
their personal interests ahead of the interests of the shareholder
and that the MidOcean entities aided and abetted such breaches.
The complaint also alleges that the Company agreed to onerous and
preclusive deal protection devices as part of the merger,
including a no solicitation provision.  In addition, the complaint
alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 23, 2011, provides misleading information or omits
material information resulting in shareholders being unable to
make a fully informed decision in voting.  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief and costs of the action, including attorneys'
fees.

On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Reyes and Ball actions
filed motions to consolidate the two actions and appoint Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP co-lead class counsel.  On
March 4, 2011, and March 8, 2011, respectively, the plaintiffs in
the Reyes and Ball actions filed motions seeking leave to conduct
discovery on an expedited basis.  On March 10, 2011, the Company
and the other defendants in the Reyes action moved to stay the
Reyes action in deference to the earlier-filed McMullan action.
Also on March 10, 2011, all defendants previously served with
process in the Ball action moved to stay that action in deference
to the McMullan action.  The foregoing motions are currently
scheduled to be heard by the Oklahoma District Court of Pontotoc
County on May 9, 2011.  On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in the
Ball action voluntarily dismissed their claims against Mr. Harp
and Ms. Pinson without prejudice.

On April 15, 2011, the parties to the McMullan action, along with
the MidOcean entities, executed a Memorandum of Understanding
reflecting their agreement to settle the claims asserted in the
McMullan action, subject to, among other things, the execution of
a stipulation of settlement, notice of the settlement being given
to shareholders, approval of the settlement by the Oklahoma
District Court of Oklahoma County, completion of confirmatory
discovery and completion of the merger.  If approved by the
Oklahoma District Court of Oklahoma County, the settlement will
resolve all pending litigation related to the merger, including
the Reyes and Ball actions, and would result in the release by the
plaintiffs and the proposed settlement class of all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
merger agreement, the merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith.  The parties to the MOU are in the process
of drafting a stipulation of settlement.

Also on April 15, 2011, Messrs. Reyes and Ball, joined by a third
putative shareholder, James V. Clark, filed motions with the
Oklahoma District Court of Oklahoma County to intervene in the
McMullan action and transfer that proceeding to Pontotoc County.
No hearing date has been set on either motion.

The Company believes these lawsuits relating to the MidOcean
merger are without merit and seek to resolve them solely to
eliminate the burden and expense of litigation.  Absent such
settlement, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.


REVLON INC: Sullivan Suit Stayed Until April 15 Pending Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc., has reached an agreement with Stanley E. Sullivan to
stay until August 15, 2011, an action before a New York state
court to permit plaintiff to participate in the merits discovery
in a consolidated action, according to the Company's April 28,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

As previously announced, on October 8, 2009, the Company
consummated its voluntary exchange offer in which, among other
things, Revlon, Inc., issued to stockholders who elected to
exchange shares (other than MacAndrews & Forbes) 9,336,905 shares
of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares
of Revlon, Inc., Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange
Offer.  On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009, and May 12,
2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by
each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T.
Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E.
Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.  Each
such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then
directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger
proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009, which
would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its
affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock
(in lieu of consummating such merger proposal, the Company
consummated the Exchange Offer).  Each action sought, among other
things, to enjoin the proposed merger transaction.  On June 24,
2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions,
and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.  As announced on
August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle
the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding.

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December 21,
2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery
Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former
director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck actions make
allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the
Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action.  On
January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and
Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action.  A briefing
schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.  Merits discovery is proceeding in the
Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
The plaintiff in this action advised defendants that he intends to
file an amended complaint by May 16, 2011.  Otherwise, defendants
and plaintiff have agreed to stay proceedings in this action until
August 15, 2011, to permit plaintiff to participate in the merits
discovery in the Consolidated Action. A similar agreement has been
reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action with the same
stay period.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts. The
Company believes the allegations contained in the amended Sullivan
complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, and
the Garofalo complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.

Revlon, Inc. is a direct and indirect majority-owned subsidiary of
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. a corporation wholly-owned by
Ronald O. Perelman.


SANDBOX MEDICAL: Recalls 6,000 Pacifier Clips Over Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sandbox Medical, LLC of Pembroke, Massachusetts, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,000 pacifier clips.  Consumers should
stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The clip can break apart, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

Sandbox Medical has received two reports that the clip broke apart
during use.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Cheaper Keeper pacifier clip that
attaches a pacifier to a child's clothing.  It is a clear plastic
clip secured by a pink ribbon with a velcro closure.  Picture of
the recalled clip is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11738.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Sandbox Baby's Web site -- http://www.gumdroppacifier.com/-- from
February 2011 through March 2011 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pacifier clip and
throw it away.  Consumers should contact Sandbox Medical for a
free replacement.  For additional information, contact Sandbox
Medical at (800) 396-1550 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gumdroppacifier.com/ Sandbox Medical is contacting its
customers directly.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Judgment in Delaware Suit
-------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its motion for
summary judgment against plaintiffs in a purported civil class
action lawsuit currently pending in Delaware, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., Era Helicopters LLC
and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v.
Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D.Del.).  SEACOR
acquired Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., and Era Helicopters
LLC in December 2004.  The complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with each other to
raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter
services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001
to December 2005.  The purported class of plaintiffs includes all
direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought includes
compensatory damages and treble damages.  On September 14, 2010,
the District Court entered an order dismissing the complaint.  On
November 30, 2010, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration and amendment, and ordered limited
discovery strictly in regard to the allegations set forth on the
plaintiff's amended complaint.  The limited discovery was
completed and the defendants have filed a motion for summary
judgment, which is pending.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from these claims but believes they are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Deepwater Horizon-Related Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a civil
action in Louisiana relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident,
according to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class, commenced a civil action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G.
Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986
(E.D. La.), in which they assert that support vessels, including
vessels owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and
resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling
rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to
save lives and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of
the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.  The action now is
part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179.  The complaint
seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages.

The Company believes that this lawsuit brought by class action
lawyers targeting emergency responders acting under the direction
of the U.S. Coast Guard has no merit and will seek its dismissal.
The Company also recently filed petitions seeking exoneration
from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any actions that
may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish
the fire.  Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, those
petitions impose an automatic stay on the Robin case, and the
court set a deadline of April 20, 2011, for individual claimants
to assert claims in the limitation cases.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Garcia Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend itself from
a purported class action lawsuit captioned Reyvis Garcia and
Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of
Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park
South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., in Florida,
according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The action was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
Case No. 04-25646 CA 32.  Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the
decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park
South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise
Memorial Gardens, Inc.  Initially, the suit sought damages on the
individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of
Eloisa Garcia.  Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping,
spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not
afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of
the decedent could not be readily located.  Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified.  In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
third amended class action complaint and added two additional
named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief.  No class has
been certified in this matter.  The Company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada.  Our operations consist
of funeral service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Sands" Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International remains a defendant in a
purported class action captioned F. Charles Sands, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial
Park, et al. in California, according to the Company's April 28,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The case is before the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles - Central District.  This case was
filed in September 2009 against the Company and certain
subsidiaries regarding its Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission
Hills, California.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of
cemetery plot owners and their families.  The plaintiff also seeks
the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations.  The
plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in
order to prepare adjoining graves for subsequent burials.  Since
the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company cannot quantify
its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada.  The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.



SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Funeral Consumers Case Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in an antitrust
lawsuit captioned Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service
Corporation International, et al. remains pending, according to
Service Corporation International's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in
2005.  The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas - Houston (Funeral Consumers Case).  This was a purported
class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United
States alleging that the Company and several other companies
involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws
and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive
conduct associated with the sale of caskets.  Based on the case
proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert
report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants
range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before
trebling.  However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action.  The Company denies that it
engaged in anticompetitive practices related to its casket sales,
and the Company has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously
dispute the validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and
calculations.  The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on
September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on
October 19, 2010.  The Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada.  The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Face "Prise" Class Action Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face a class action
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's April 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation
International; Cause No. 06-164; pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was filed
by two former Alderwoods, Inc., employees in December 2006, and
purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who
performed work for which they were not fully compensated,
including work for which overtime pay was owed.  The court has
conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job
positions for Alderwoods employees.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA,
failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations
of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit,
quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated,
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The Company
cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit

The ultimate outcome of the matters cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit,
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada. The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International remains a defendant in a
purported class action captioned Bryant, et al. v. Alderwoods
Group, Inc., Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No.
3:07-CV-5696-SI, according to the Company's April 28, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

This lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2007 against the Company and
various subsidiaries and individuals.  It is related to lawsuits
alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and
hour overtime pay, raising similar claims and brought by the same
attorneys.  This lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is now Case No.
08-CV-00891-JFC.  The Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada. The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Bryant & Helm Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend purported
class actions captioned Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v.
AWGI & SCI ; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, according to the Company's
April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

These lawsuits were filed on December 5, 2007, by counsel for
plaintiffs.  These cases assert state law claims similar to the
federal claims asserted in lawsuits alleging violations of federal
and state laws regulating wage and hour overtime pay.  These cases
were removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division.
The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case
is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.  On December 29, 2009, the court in
the Helm case denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as
a class action.  The plaintiffs have modified and refiled their
motion for certification.  On March 9, 2011, the court denied
plaintiffs' renewed motions to certify a class in both of the
Bryant and Helm cases.  The plaintiffs have also filed 21
additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class
certification of state law claims in different states.  The
plaintiffs have also filed demands for arbitration in Bryant,
Stickle, and some of the state courts where the additional
lawsuits were filed.  The Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada. The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Court Decertifies Class in "Stickle" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A federal court granted Service Corporation International's motion
to decertify a class in Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al., according to the Company's April 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The case, Case No. 08-CV-83, was filed before the U.S. District
Court for Arizona, Phoenix Division.  Counsel for plaintiffs in
this lawsuit alleging violations of federal and state laws
regulating wage and hour overtime pay filed the case on
January 17, 2008, against the Company and various related entities
and individuals asserting Fair Labor Standards Act and other
ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime.
In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees.
On April 20, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify the class.  The Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, an adverse decision could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corporation is North America's
largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a
network of funeral service locations and cemeteries primarily
operating in the United States and Canada. The Company's
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses.


SONY COMPUTER: Faces Fifth Suit Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Romaine, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-012180 (N.D. Calif. May 3, 2011), is filed on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased a Sony
PlayStation console and subscribed to the PlayStation Network as
of April 17, 2011, and suffered loss of service and breach of
security on April 17 to 19, 2011, in breach of defendants' express
and implied warranties, and in violation of state and federal law.

The Complaint seeks damages and other relief as a result of the
failure of defendants to protect private credit card and personal
data for its over 70 million subscribers and users of PlayStation.

Plaintiff relates that defendants waited more that a week before
advising class members of the security breach.

Plaintiff Ryan Romaine, a citizen of the State of California,
avers that on April 25, 2011, he was informed that his personal
data, as provided to defendants, had been accessed by a third
party.  On April 23, 2011, he noticed fraudulent charges on his
bank debit card which was the same card used for the PSN network
services.

Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its headquarters in Foster City,
California.

The plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael F. Ram, Esq.
           J. Kirk Boyd, Esq.
           RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
           555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
           San Francisco, CA 94111
           Telephone: (415) 433-4949
           E-mail: mram@rock1awcal.com
                   kboyd@rocklawcal.com

                - and -

           Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
           LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
           100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
           Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197
           Telephone: (612) 339-6900
           E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com


SONY NETWORK: Faces Sixth Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher W. McKewon, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Sony Network Entertainment America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02177 (N.D. Calif. May 3, 2011), is filed on
behalf of all persons or entities that created a user account on
the PlayStation Network or Qriocity service ("Sony Online
Services") prior to April 17, 2011, all of whom suffered a loss of
service and the compromise of their personal and financial
information on April 17 to 19, 2011.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Sony negligently failed to
adequately protect the personal and financial user account
information of millions of users of its PlayStation Network and
Qriocity services, and failed to promptly and properly notify
users of the breach of their personal and financial personal
information by third parties.

Moreover, plaintiffs aver that Sony knew that the PlayStation
Network was vulnerable to data breach, but nevertheless failed to
sufficiently warn users of the risk of data breach, failed to
remedy defects in the PlayStation Network that made it vulnerable
to data breach, and continued to encourage consumers to buy Sony
hardware and to subscribe to the PlayStation Network.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTE1N 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
                  moran@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: levitt@whafh.com
                  aronowitz@whafh.com

               - and -

          William J. Doyle, Esq.
          John A. Lowther, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 573-1700
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  john@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Charles W. "Trey" Branham, III, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          Todd Goldberg, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          2501 North Harwood, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          E-mail: tbranham@goldfarbbranham.com
                  hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com
                  tgoldberg@goldfarbbranham.com


TEREX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Class Suits in Conn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation is awaiting court rulings on its motions to
dismiss two consolidated class action lawsuits pending in
Connecticut, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011`

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit:

  * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the
    United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
    September 20, 2010, and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
    Litigation.

  * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
    securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
    United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
    November 18, 2010, and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers
    Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council
    Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

  * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
    Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
    waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on
    April 12, 2010, in the United States District Court, District
    of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on
    behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C.
    Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P.
    Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset,
    Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer,
    Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to it, the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA lawsuit and
the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate
assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the
market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by
certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses.  As a result, it is not possible for the Company to
estimate a loss or range of losses for these lawsuits.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and the Company, its directors and the named executives
will continue to vigorously defend against them.  The Company
believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters.  Accordingly, on November 19, 2010 the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These
motions are currently in the briefing stage and pending before the
court.  The plaintiff in the shareholder derivative lawsuit has
agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the
outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities
lawsuit.

Westport, Connecticut-based Terex is a diversified global
equipment manufacturer of a variety of machinery products.


TIME WARNER: Amended Antitrust Suits May be Filed Until May 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in antitrust suits against Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
have until May 13, 2011, to file amended complaints, according to
the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 31, 2011.

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television
Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the United States.  These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On July 26, 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action
complaint, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converters boxes.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court
granted on April 8, 2011.  Plaintiffs have until May 13, 2011, to
seek the court's permission to file a new amended complaint.  If
the plaintiffs file a new amended complaint, the Company relates
that it will defend against that lawsuit vigorously.

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in
five geographic areas, New York State, the Carolinas, Ohio,
Southern California and Texas.  As of March 31, 2011, TWC served
approximately 14.5 million residential and commercial customers
who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription
services -- video, high-speed data and voice -- totaling
approximately 26.9 million primary service units.


TIME WARNER: LA Court to Reconsider TWC Request in "Swinegar" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will reconsider a summary
judgment motion filed by Time Warner Cable, Inc., in the class
action lawsuit alleging violations of California consumer laws,
according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for
equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation
of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 against "negative option billing" and that
such violation was an unlawful act or practice under California's
Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").  Plaintiffs are seeking
restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees.  On February 23,
2009, the court denied TWC's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the court denied the Company's
motion for summary judgment.  On October 7, 2010, the Company
filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the Federal
Communications Commission, requesting that the FCC determine
whether the Company's general ordering process complies with the
Cable Act's "negative option billing" restriction.  On March 1,
2011, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that informed consent is
adequate to satisfy the requirements under the Cable Act.  On
March 29, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacated its
prior summary judgment ruling, and the court will again consider
TWC's motion for summary judgment.  The Company intends to defend
against the lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible
loss.

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in
five geographic areas, New York State, the Carolinas, Ohio,
Southern California and Texas.  As of March 31, 2011, TWC served
approximately 14.5 million residential and commercial customers
who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription
services -- video, high-speed data and voice -- totaling
approximately 26.9 million primary service units.


TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Brantley" Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a district court ruling dismissing a purported
California class action initiated by Brantley that alleges
violations of antitrust laws remains pending, Time Warner Cable,
Inc., disclosed in its April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company.  The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers --
the "distributor defendants -- as well as programming content
providers -- the "programmer defendants -- alleged violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Among other
things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the
programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a
"bundled" basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn
purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged
tiers, rather than on a per channel or a la carte basis.
Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of
cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel
the offering of channels to subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.
On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and
all allegations of horizontal coordination.  On October 15, 2009,
the district court granted with prejudice a motion by the
distributor defendants and the programmer defendants to dismiss
the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, terminating the action.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Company intends to
defend against the lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict
the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in
five geographic areas, New York State, the Carolinas, Ohio,
Southern California and Texas.  As of March 31, 2011, TWC served
approximately 14.5 million residential and commercial customers
who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription
services -- video, high-speed data and voice -- totaling
approximately 26.9 million primary service units.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Noia" Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., continues to defend the class action
captioned Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable
Inc. pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The Noia Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2009, alleging that the Company uses a throttling
technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-
speed data service.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On September 25,
2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in the action, which is
pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in
five geographic areas, New York State, the Carolinas, Ohio,
Southern California and Texas.  As of March 31, 2011, TWC served
approximately 14.5 million residential and commercial customers
who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription
services -- video, high-speed data and voice -- totaling
approximately 26.9 million primary service units.


TIME WARNER: Defends Class Suit Over Improper Phone Call Recording
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., is currently defending itself against a
purported class action, originally filed on January 27, 2011, in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned Calzada, et al.
v. Time Warner Cable LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company recorded phone calls with
plaintiffs without notice in violation of provisions of the
California Penal Code and the California Unfair Business Practices
Act.  Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified
treble monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution and
attorneys' fees.  On April 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the action that, among other things, omitted the
unfair business practices claim and removed two of the three named
plaintiffs.  The Company intends to defend itself against the
lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in
five geographic areas, New York State, the Carolinas, Ohio,
Southern California and Texas.  As of March 31, 2011, TWC served
approximately 14.5 million residential and commercial customers
who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription
services -- video, high-speed data and voice -- totaling
approximately 26.9 million primary service units.


TOWN SPORTS: Unit Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Two Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, TSI LLC, is
awaiting a decision on its motions to dismiss class action
allegations in two lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file
motions to certify the class actions, according to the Company's
April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town
Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme
Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that
TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York
State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain
trainers and assistant fitness managers.  On June 18, 2007, the
same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against
TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated
various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State
Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York
purported hourly employees.  On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made
motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits
for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the
class actions.  Oral argument on the motions occurred on
November 10, 2010.  A decision is still pending.

While it is unable at this time to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or the potential loss to TSI, LLC in the event
of such an outcome, the Company says it intends to contest these
cases vigorously.  Depending upon the ultimate outcome, these
matters may have a material adverse effect on TSI, LLC's and the
Company's consolidated results of operations or cash flows.


TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls 36,000 Beaded Curtains
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor Tween Brands Inc., doing business as Justice, of New
Albany, Ohio, and importer GMA Accessories Inc., of New York,
N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 36,000 beaded
curtains.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The beaded curtains are prone to entanglement.  When an adult or
child plays with or runs through the beaded curtains, the risks of
entanglement and strangulation are posed.

The firm has received two reports of consumers becoming entangled
in the curtains.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two styles of Justice-brand beaded door
curtains, the diamond beaded curtain, and the disco ball beaded
curtain.  These multi-colored curtains are used as a decorative
divider in a doorway and measure 72 inches long.  Each curtain is
sold with two plastic mounting brackets, each measuring 12 inches
wide.  The name of the product is printed on the packaging and the
curtains have tracking numbers 904598.1735 and 904597.1735 printed
on labels located on one of the mounting brackets and on the
packaging.

Picture of the recalled beaded curtains is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11211.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Justice stores nationwide and online at
http://www.shopjustice.com/from August 2010 through March 2011
for approximately $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled curtains and
return them to any Justice store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Tween Brands at (800) 934-4497
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.shopjustice.com/


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wins OK to Pay $13-Mil. to Settle Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, Bloomberg News' bankruptcy columnist, reports that
Washington Mutual Inc. received authority this week to pay
$13 million to settle a class action on behalf of individuals who
allegedly were charged improper fees when they paid off home
loans.  WaMu said it decided to settle even though it believed the
suit to be "entirely without merit."

                      About Washington Mutual

Based in Seattle, Washington, Washington Mutual Inc. --
http://www.wamu.com/-- is a holding company for Washington Mutual
Bank as well as numerous non-bank subsidiaries.

Washington Mutual Bank was taken over on Sept. 25, 2008, by U.S.
government regulators.  The next day, WaMu and its affiliate, WMI
Investment Corp., filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 relief
(Bankr. D. Del. 08-12229 and 08-12228, respectively).  WaMu owns
100% of the equity in WMI Investment.  When WaMu filed for
protection from its creditors, it disclosed assets of
$32,896,605,516 and debts of $8,167,022,695.  WMI Investment
estimated assets of $500 million to $1 billion with zero debts.

WaMu is represented by Brian Rosen, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP in New York City; Mark D. Collins, Esq., at Richards,
Layton & Finger P.A. in Wilmington, Del.; and Peter Calamari,
Esq., and David Elsberg, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, LLP.  Fred S. Hodara, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Fled LLP in New York City and David B. Stratton, Esq., at Pepper
Hamilton LLP in Wilmington, Del., represent the Official Committee
of Unsecured Creditors.  Stephen D. Susman, Esq., at Susman
Godfrey LLP and William P. Bowden, Esq., at Ashby & Geddes, P.A.,
represent the Equity Committee.  Stacey R. Friedman, Esq., at
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Adam G. Landis, Esq., at Landis Rath &
Cobb LLP in Wilmington, Del., represent JPMorgan Chase, which
acquired WaMu's assets prior to the Petition Date.

On Jan. 7, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a 107-page opinion
determining that the global settlement agreement, among certain
parties including WMI, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., upon which the Plan is premised,
and the transactions contemplated therein, are fair, reasonable,
and in the best interests of WMI.  Additionally, the Opinion and
related order denied confirmation, but suggested certain
modifications to the Company's Sixth Amended Joint Plan of
Affiliated Debtors that, if made, would facilitate confirmation.

Washington Mutual has revised the Plan in accordance with the
Jan. 7 ruling.  In April 2011, Washington Mutual won approval of
the disclosure statement for its sixth amended plan of
reorganization.  The Modified Plan calls for the distribution of
over $7 billion in allowed claims.  Creditors are again voting on
the Plan.  Ballots are due May 13.  The confirmation hearing for
approval of the Plan is set for June 6.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Antitrust Class Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging
claims under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws are still pending, according to the Company's
April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc., and other company affiliates in
various state and federal courts alleging claims under various
federal and state competition and consumer protection laws.
Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification.  Approximately 42 cases have been
filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities.  Twenty-two
of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Ciprofloxacin
Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383).  On
May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted
Watson's motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories
under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the
other defendants.  On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the
consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims and denied the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification.  On May 7, 2005, three groups of
plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser
plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs Rite
Aid and CVS) filed notices of appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the
May 20, 2003, order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  On
November 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
ordered the appeal by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.  On October 15, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the indirect
purchasers' claims, and on December 22, 2008, denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en
banc.  On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari.  In the
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by the direct purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs CVS and
Rite Aid, on April 29, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and on
September 7, 2010, denied the appellants' petition for rehearing
en banc.  On December 6, 2010, the appellants filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's decision.

On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari.  Other actions are
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida.  The actions generally allege that the
defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in
connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis (Sanofi), related to the
development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand
drug, Cipro(R).  The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter pending the outcome of the appeals in the
consolidated case.  In the action pending in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I &
II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the
California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the
plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class.
On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal remains pending.
In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions.  Sanofi has agreed to defend
and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the
claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Medical West Claims Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit court in Missouri denied a motion to dismiss claims or
to stay court proceedings filed by a unit of Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.' -- Anda, Inc., -- in the class action
lawsuit commenced by Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, Ltd., according
to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  The action is titled Medical West Ballas Pharmacy,
LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).  In April 2008,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The amended
complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful.  The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties.  In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying the allegations.  In November 2009, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to expand the class of plaintiffs from
individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission
or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or
after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and
products by or on behalf of Defendant."  In November 2010, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the
definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs.  On
November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory
basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes
sent with express permission of the recipient.  The FCC's ruling
on Anda's petition may determine whether fax recipients who
expressly agree to receive faxes may assert claims for receipt of
such faxes pursuant to the TCPA.  On December 2, 2010, Anda filed
a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on
behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed
to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay
the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
FCC.

On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion.  The plaintiff's
motion for class certification is required to be filed by May 19,
2011.  No trial date has been set.

Anda says it intends to defend the action vigorously.  However,
this action, if successful, could have an adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Final OK of MDL Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2002, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain
of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named as defendants in various state and federal
court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices
related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale
acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants
committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and
market shares.  Some of these actions have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 145).  The consolidated amended Class Action complaint
in that case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated
the reimbursement amounts of certain drugs paid by various public
and private plans and programs.  Certain defendants, including the
Company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all
claims against them in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total
amount of the settlement for all of the settling defendants is
$125 million.  The amount to be paid by each settling defendant is
confidential.  On July 2, 2008, the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track
Two settlement.  On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to
further consider the fairness of the proposed settlement.  The
Court adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action.

The Company says the settlement is not expected to materially
adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2010, West Bank was named a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit that asserts non-sufficient funds
fees charged by West Bank on bank card transactions are not fees
but, rather, finance charges that violate Iowa usury laws.  West
Bank believes the allegations in the lawsuit are factually and
legally inaccurate.  West Bank is vigorously defending this
litigation.

No updates were reported in West Bancorporation, Inc.'s April 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


WRK ENTERPRISES: Recalls 453 Sea Elite Buoyancy Control Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with WRK Enterprises, doing business as Edge Dive Gear
of Macon, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 405 in
the U.S. and 48 in Canada Sea Elite Systems Buoyancy Control
Devices.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The spring in the over pressure valve can corrode and break
preventing the buoyancy control device from retaining air, posing
a drowning hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall affects Sea Elite Scout and Profile model BCDs.

The Scout is a jacket-style BCD made of lightweight nylon and is
foldable.  It is black with blue accents on the lower sides.  The
word "Scout" is printed in white letters on the right front and
the words "Sea Elite" are on a flap over the corrugated hose.
Scout BCDs within these serial number ranges are affected by this
recall: 001229 to 001244 and 001246 to 001489.  The serial number
is printed on a tag in the front pocket.

The Profile is a jacket-style BCD made of heavyweight nylon.  It
is black with blue on the lower sides.  The word "Profile" is
printed in white letters on the right front and the words "Sea
Elite" are on a flap over the corrugated hose.  Profile BCDs with
these serial numbers are affected by this recall:

                      Sea Elite Profile BCD
                         Serial Numbers
                      ---------------------
                         000700 to 000729
                         000733 to 000763
                         000765 to 000772
                              000879
                         001490 to 001560
                         001562 to 001565

The serial number is printed on a tag in the front pocket.

Pictures of the recalled buoyancy control devices are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11209.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Divers Supply Store locations nationwide and online at
http://www.divers-supply.com/in Canada from May 2009 through
October 2010 for about $199 to $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the BCDs and return them
to an authorized Sea Elite Systems dealer for a free spring
replacement at no charge.  For additional information, contact
Chris Richardson at 1-888-370-3483 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the Edge Dive Gear
Web site at http://www.edge-gear.com/


WRK ENTERPRISES: Recalls 770 Edge & HOG Buoyancy Control Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with WRK Enterprises, doing business as Edge Dive Gear
of Macon, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 750 in
the U.S. and 20 in Canada Edge and HOG (Highly Optimized Gear)
Buoyancy Control Devices.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The spring in the over pressure valve can corrode and break
preventing the buoyancy control device from retaining air, posing
a drowning hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall affects Edge Freedom and Stealth models, and the HOG
32lb Wing model.

The Freedom is a jacket-style BCD made of heavyweight nylon.  It
is black and has a blue arch on the lower right side.  The word
"Freedom" is printed in white letters on the right front and the
word "Edge" is located on a flap over the corrugated hose.
Freedom BCDs with the serial numbers in the table below are
affected.  The serial number is printed on a tag that is located
in the front right zipper pocket.

                 Edge Freedom BCD Serial Numbers
                 -------------------------------
               000524 to 000551   001003 to 001022
               000553 to 000554   001024 to 001103
                    000773             001106
               000775 to 000873   001125 to 001149
               000881 to 000890   001151 to 001160
               000892 to 000911   001162 to 001186
               000913 to 001001   001188 to 001228

The Stealth is a back flotation-style BCD made of heavyweight
nylon.  It is black and gray with the word "Stealth" printed in
white letters on the right-hand strap, and the word "Edge" on a
flap over the corrugated hose.  Stealth BCDs with serial numbers
000658 to 000697 are affected by this recall.  The serial number
is printed on a tag that is located in a small zippered pocket
under the left weight pocket.

The HOG 32lb Wing is an oval-shaped, donut-style BCD made of
heavyweight black nylon.  It is designed for single-cylinder
diving with a back plate or soft pack harness system.  The HOG
logo, a picture of a wild boar with the words "Highly Optimized
Gear" and "HOG" inside an oval, is on the top strap of the device.
HOG 32lb Wing BCDs with serial numbers 9042101 to 9042128 are
affected by this recall.  The serial number is inside a zippered
compartment on a tag attached to the inner bladder of the wing.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11212.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized Edge and HOG dealers nationwide, and in Canada from May
2009 through October 2010 for $199 to $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the BCDs and return them
to an authorized Edge dealer for a free spring replacement at no
charge.  For additional information, contact Chris Richardson at
1-888-370-3483 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.edge-gear.com/

                            *********

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  * * *