CAR_Public/110510.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 10, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 91

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Spying Device in Computers
ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Kentucky
ARCTIC GLACIER:  To Settle Conspiracy Class Action for C$2 Mil.

ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Service Could Expand
CMS ENERGY CORP: Class Action Suits Vs. Subsidiary Still Pending
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Suit in Mediation for Possible Settlement
CRYOLIFE INC: Defends Two Class Suits Related to Cardiogenesis

DEAN FOODS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Cavitron(R) Suit Still Pending in Calif.
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Pending
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Class Suits Remain Pending in Ohio
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Bank Unit Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit

GEROVA FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
HAWAII: Substitute Teacher Class Action May Cost $70 Million
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: To Share Judgment With Hillenbrand
ILLINOIS: Department of Corrections Sued Over Discrimination
INTELLIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Reaches Deal to Settle "Cardenas" Class Action
LIVINGSOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Expiration Dates
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Remains Pending
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Court Approves Settlement on a Final Basis
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit

MISSION, CANADA: B.C. Civil Liberties Backs Grow-Up Class Action
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Wass-Smith" Suit in Kansas
OMNICARE INC: Continues to Defend "Spindler" Suit in California
SEALY CORP: Sued for Denying Warranty Coverage for Mattresses
SEMGROUP: Settles Class Action Over Improper Trading

SONY CORP: Faces Seventh Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY CORP: To Investigate Data Breach Following Class Actions
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
SYNGENTA CROP: Environmental Groups Intervene in Class Action
TARGET CORP: Removes "Brown" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.

TREMONT RYE: May 11 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Still Pending on Dealer Lawsuit Verdict
U.S. HIGH-TECH COS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Address Global Warming
UNITED STATES: Missouri Farmers Joins Levee Breach Class Action

UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Repressive New Immigration Law
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal of Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Class Action Suit in Alabama Still Pending




                             *********

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Spying Device in Computers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that one of the
nation's largest rental chains spies on customers by equipping
rent-to-own computers with secret software that remotely snaps
their photos, takes screen shots, tracks keystrokes, and snoops on
private communications, a class action claims in Federal Court.
Aaron's, the lead defendant, has more than 1,500 outlets in the
United States and Canada.

Crystal and Brian Byrd of Casper, Wyo., sued Atlanta-based Aaron's
and affiliates, claiming Aaron's "secretly installed a spying
device" called "PC Rental Agent" on its rental computers, allowing
Aaron's "to surreptitiously monitor, intercept and collect
plaintiffs' electronic communications from anywhere in the world."

Also sued are Aspen Way Enterprises dba Aaron's Sales and Leasing,
an Aaron's franchisee; John Doe 1-100 Aaron's franchisees; and
Designerware LLC.

The Byrds say: "It has been the practice and policy of the Aaron's
defendants to conceal from their customers their ability to
remotely access, intercept and monitor customers' private,
personal electronic communications, information, screen shots,
keystrokes or images captured on webcams and to further disclose
to consumers exactly the kinds of private information and images
that can be and were routinely collected, transmitted and stored.

"The Aaron's defendants' sales, rental or lease agreements neither
seeks permission from nor discloses to RTO [rent-to-own] customers
the presence of PC Rental Agent or its ability to monitor and
intercept communications and other data from Aaron's RTO
computers."

The software, manufactured by defendant DesignerWare, a
Pennsylvania company, was sold to Aaron's "for the primary purpose
of allowing the Aaron's defendants to remotely track, access,
monitor, monitor and/or transmit electronic communications on
Aaron's RTO computers," the complaint states.

The Byrds say that PC Rental Agent "is, in fact, invisible or
undetectable to customers and to other end users of Aaron's RTO
computers," and "cannot be uninstalled or easily detected,"
because it is "soldered into the computer's motherboard and/or is
part of the Intel Chipset. . . . It can only be deactivated using
a 'Wand' that is not accessible to the ultimate user of the rented
computer."

The Byrds say that in December 2010, after they had paid off their
lease in-full for a rented Dell laptop, an Aaron's store manager
came to their home and "incorrectly claimed that the Byrds were in
default on their lease agreement and demanded that the Byrd
computer be returned to Aaron's."

"To further support his attempts to collect the Byrd computer,
[manager/nonparty Christopher] Mendoza informed co-plaintiff Brian
Byrd that he had obtained a photograph of Brian Byrd using the
computer -- and he showed him a photo of Brian Byrd which had been
taken remotely using the PC Rental Agent," the complaint states.

"When Brian Byrd demanded that Mendoza explain how Mendoza had
obtained an unauthorized photograph, Mendoza responded that he was
not supposed to disclose that Aaron's had the photograph."

Mr. Byrd says he ordered the manager off his property, then
contacted law enforcement.

A police investigation revealed that PC Rental Agent was routinely
being used by Aaron's, and that only the company's regional
managers -- not Mendoza or his immediate supervisor -- had the
ability to tinker with the software's settings, the plaintiffs
say.

"The law enforcement investigation determined that the
communications and other data captured by the PC Rental Agent was
transmitted from Aaron's RTO computers to a central server
operated by DesignerWare located in Pennsylvania where the data
was then made available to the Aaron's defendants throughout the
country," the Byrds say.

This surveillance was carried out through a method called
"prompting."

During the prompting process, a pop-up box appears on the screen,
asking for a user's name, address and telephone number.

When the information is submitted, the user is granted access to
the computer, but not before "the PC Rental Agent causes the
Webcam to take, transmit and store an unauthorized photograph and
other data of the user entering the information," the complaint
states.

A police officer saw some of the process go down live, the Byrds
say: "While law enforcement was conducting its investigation at
the Casper [Aaron's store . . . a law enforcement officer observed
an unauthorized photograph of another Aaron's customer, and was
told that Aaron's regularly received e-mails from DesignerWare
with unauthorized photographs and other communications taken of
customers," according to the complaint.

The Byrds seek punitive damages for the class, for violations of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act.

They are represented by Frederick S. Longer, Esq., with Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia.

They believe the class exceeds 50,000 people or entities.

On its company Web site, Aaron's says the publicly traded company
has more than 1,500 stores in the U.S. and Canada.

In an undated message on its home page, "Find out more about
Aaron's and computer privacy," Aaron's responded to "the recent
allegations regarding customer privacy and Aarons . . . Aaron's
customers can be assured that we're taking this allegation very
seriously.  We are conducting a thorough investigation and
diligently reaching out to our customers to address any of their
concerns."

A copy of the Complaint in Byrd, et ux. v. Aaron's Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00101 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/RentalAgent.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Daniel L. Levin, Esq.
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: 877-882-1011
          E-mail: flonger@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Robinson, Esq.
          JAMIESON & ROBINSON, LLC
          214 S. Grant Street
          Casper, WY 82601
          Telephone: (307) 235-3575
          E-mail: robinsn@vcn.com

               - and -

          G. Bryan Ulmer, III, Esq.
          Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq.
          R. Daniel Fleck, Esq.
          THE SPENCE LAW FIRM
          PO Box 548
          154 South Jackson Street
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 733-7290
          E-mail: ulmer@spencelawyers.com
                  orchard@spencelawyers.com
                  fleck@spencelawyers.com

               - and -

          Christopher V. Tisi, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          2000 L Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 783-6400
               - and -

          Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
          James F. Green, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          E-mail: mparf@aol.com
                  jgreen@ashcraftlaw.com

               - and -

          Maury A. Herman, Esq.
          Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, L.L.P.
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          E-mail: mherman@hhkc.com
                  ldavis@hhkc.com

               - and -

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL, LLP
          230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
securities class action lawsuit filed in Illinois, according to
the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al, was
filed on September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case
1:10-cv-05757) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 21, 2006, and April 22, 2010.  The complaint
alleged that certain Company officers made false or misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts in order to make
statements not misleading, relating to the Company's Acurox(R)
with Niacin Tablet product candidate, resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint further alleges that the false or misleading statements
or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock.  On March 14, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed in this lawsuit.  The amended complaint
asserts the same claims as the initial complaint based upon the
same alleged false or misleading statements, and has added three
of the Company's current directors as defendants.  The Court has
changed the caption of this case to In re Acura Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The Company believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that graphic
designers say in a federal antitrust class action that Adobe
Systems bought Macromedia to remove its competitor FreeHand from
the professional graphic illustration market, and to force users
to switch to Adobe's more expensive, and inferior, Illustrator
software.

The class claims Adobe "has engaged in unlawful, willful
acquisition and maintenance of monopoly power in the market for
professional vector graphic illustration software."

Vector graphic illustration software uses mathematical formulas
plotted by the graphic designer.

Lead plaintiff Free FreeHand, a nonprofit organization with more
than 5,500 members, says its "members believe FreeHand is a
superior product to Illustrator."

FreeHand's members include workers in fine arts, screen printing,
animation, cartoons, catalog and newspaper design, advertising,
scientific and technical design, type and font design,
architecture, furniture and textile design, and other areas.

It says it's been forced to sue to ensure that design
professionals have access to "the ongoing maintenance and updating
that is needed for the FreeHand software to work properly on the
computer hardware and operating systems of today and in the
future."

The class claims Adobe acquired FreeHand in 2005 when it bought
Macromedia, "effectively removing FreeHand from the market by
failing to update the program."  Since then, Adobe has
"significantly raised the price of Illustrator," and in 2007,
Adobe announced it would stop developing FreeHand, the class
claims.

The class claims Adobe encourages, and forces, customers to buy
"the higher priced Illustrator software product due to the lack of
support and development of FreeHand and its increasing advance to
total obsolescence."

Adobe has published guides on how to make the switch from FreeHand
to Illustrator.  Adobe refused to release the FreeHand code, and
if customers switch from FreeHand to Illustrator, they will lose
the use of their FreeHand-created designs, the illustrators say.

In 2004, before Adobe acquired FreeHand, Illustrator cost $399.
The price increased to $499 in 2005, and to $599 in 2008, when
Adobe released a new version of Illustrator, the class says.

Instead of developing new features for Illustrator, Adobe has
"simply been incorporating existing FreeHand features into
Illustrator, instead of innovating and developing features not
already developed for FreeHand," including "perspective tool,
paste/draw inside, blob brush, and multiple pages," the complaint
states.

The class claims that Adobe has 100% market share of the Macintosh
submarket because it owns FreeHand and Illustrator, the only
competing products in the Macintosh market, and has about 80%
market share of the Windows market, as it owns two of the three
competing products.

Adobe's bundling of Illustrator with other Adobe products,
including Photoshop, Dreamweaver and InDesign, "constitutes a
significant entry barrier by limiting the ability of potential
rival professional software manufacturers to enter the market
without a full array of graphics software," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment and
treble damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Free FreeHand Corp., et al. v. Adobe
Systems, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02174 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/Freehand.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
          66 West Flagler Street, Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-0072
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
                  elizabeth@beckandlee.com


ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action complaint was filed against Almost
Family, Inc., in Kentucky, 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.

Four putative class action lawsuits pending against Almost Family
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit
entitled In Re Almost Family Securities Litigation.  The
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2011.  The complaint
refers to an article from The Wall Street Journal and subsequent
governmental investigations and alleges that the Company, its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer violated
federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages and awards
of attorneys' fees and costs.  Almost Family is currently
preparing a responsive pleading.


ARCTIC GLACIER:  To Settle Conspiracy Class Action for C$2 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gowri Jayakumar, writing for Reuters, reports that Arctic Glacier
Income Fund will settle class action lawsuits related to an
alleged conspiracy to eliminate smaller competition, with Canadian
purchasers of packaged ice for C$2 million.

The settlement provides for the resolution of all outstanding
direct purchaser actions commenced against Arctic Glacier and U.S.
peer Reddy Ice Holdings in Ontario and in Alberta.

The U.S. government had begun a probe three years back on the
North American packaged ice producers, including Arctic and Reddy
Ice, for an alleged conspiracy to eliminate smaller rivals and
keep retail prices higher than market levels.

Shares of Arctic, which said last September it was reviewing
strategic alternatives, closed at C$1.50 on May 4 on the Toronto
Stock Exchange.


ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial Life, Inc. on May 4 disclosed that on April 29, 2011, a
securities class action against the Company was dismissed
voluntarily by the plaintiffs and its counsel in its entirety.

Just two weeks ago, this lawsuit was brought on behalf of certain
shareholders by the Rosen Law Firm alleging securities fraud.  The
Company (ALIFE) at the time announced that the allegations wholly
lacked merit, and just two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the
class action was dismissed -- at the request of the plaintiff's
attorneys.

"As we stated earlier, the Company's stance from the outset was
that the allegations contained in the complaint were completely
without merit," said Eberhard Schoneburg, the Company's CEO.

"The voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit by plaintiff's counsel on
Friday clearly confirms the Company's position.  We will fight any
irresponsible and frivolous legal threats with all available means
and determination to protect our shareholders and the Company.  We
are now also in the process of evaluating and investigating
appropriate actions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys,
the latter of which has recently been named by other public
companies in connection with, among other things, the filing of
frivolous class action lawsuits and the potential manipulation of
other company's share prices," said Frank Namyslik, the Company's
CFO.

                   About Artificial Life, Inc.

Artificial Life, Inc., has been a pioneer in artificial
intelligence and mobile technology since its inception in Boston
in 1994.  The company is a public US corporation (OTC BB: ALIFE)
with listing on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Frankfurt: AIF.F;
Xetra: AIF.DE) and headquarters and production center in Hong
Kong.  It has additional offices in Berlin, Germany (EMEA
headquarters), Tokyo, Japan, and Santa Monica, USA.  Its main
business areas are: high quality (3D) interactive (massively
multiplayer) mobile games, mobile participation television, mobile
business applications, its powerful mobile commerce technology
platform OPUS-M(TM) and its green IT solutions provided by Green
Cortex, Inc.


BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Service Could Expand
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit that accuses Bell
Mobility of charging users for non-existent 911 service in the
Northwest Territories could expand to include customers in Nunavut
and Yukon.

Lawyers behind James and Samuel Anderson's lawsuit asked the
N.W.T. Supreme Court on May 3 to expand the suit to include
approximately 4,000 Bell Mobility customers in Nunavut and 1,500
customers in rural Yukon communities.

Bell Mobility is the largest cellular carrier in the Northwest
Territories, with about 20,000 customers.

However, there is no 911 emergency operator service in the N.W.T.
Residents must instead dial a seven-digit local phone number for
immediate fire, medical or Royal Canadian Mounted Police
assistance in their communities.

James Anderson, a Yellowknife resident, and his son Samuel want
Bell Mobility to pay back the 75-cent monthly fee it has charged
to them and other customers for 911 service that is not available
in their areas.

James Anderson filed the lawsuit in 2007. It was certified as a
class action last year.

Only Whitehorse has 911 Service

In Canada's northern territories, only the Yukon capital city of
Whitehorse has 911 service.  It does not exist in Yukon
communities outside the city, nor does it exist anywhere in
Nunavut.

Bell Mobility has argued that it never agreed to provide 911
service.  The company has said there was no mention of providing
the emergency service in its contract with cellphone customers.

The carrier is also opposing the Andersons' motion to expand the
lawsuit to include Yukon and Nunavut customers, arguing that the
class action should be restricted to customers in the Northwest
Territories only.

But Keith Landy, Esq., and Sam Marr, Esq., two Toronto-based
lawyers who are representing the Andersons, told the court by
video conference that the dollar amounts involved are so small --
about $9 per year for each customer -- that the only way Nunavut
and rural Yukon customers could sue Bell Mobility would be by
joining the N.W.T. lawsuit.

During the court hearing on May 3, the Andersons' lawyers and Bell
Mobility argued about how customers should be notified about the
lawsuit, and which side should pay the costs associated with that
notification process.

Among other things, both sides also disagreed on whether the trial
should be held before a judge and jury, which the Andersons'
lawyers want, or before a judge alone, which Bell Mobility wants.

The judge hearing the case said he will issue a written ruling as
soon as he can on all the issues brought up at the May 3 hearing.


CMS ENERGY CORP: Class Action Suits Vs. Subsidiary Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, a subsidiary of CMS
Enterprises Company, continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits brought against it over alleged inaccurate natural gas
price reporting, according to CMS Energy Corporation's April 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services Inc., Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as
defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising
as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information.  Allegations include
manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices,
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.

In 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and complaint that
named CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services as defendants in
a putative class action filed in Kansas state court, Learjet,
Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.  The complaint alleges that
during the putative class period, January 1, 2000 through October
31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased
natural gas from the defendants and others for their facilities,
are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the
full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.

In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state
court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws.  Defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged
to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.

Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v.
Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf of
retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed in
Colorado state court in May 2006.  Defendants, including CMS
Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are
seeking full refund damages.

A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy
Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on behalf
of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002.  The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees. After dismissal on jurisdictional
grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new case in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  In November 2010, the
MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting the CMS Energy
defendants' motion to dismiss the new Michigan case on statute-of-
limitations grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been
dismissed from the Arandell Michigan case.

Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS
ERM, CMS Energy, and Cantera Gas Company, was filed in 2009 in
circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy
defendants and 19 other non-CMS Energy companies.  The plaintiff
is seeking full consideration damages, treble damages, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee of
the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas state court
against a number of energy companies, including CMS Energy, CMS
MST, and CMS Field Services.  The complaint alleges various claims
under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is seeking
statutory full consideration damages for its purchases of natural
gas between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001.  This case is
not a class action.

After removal to federal court, the Learjet, Heartland,
Breckenridge, both Arandell cases, Newpage, and J.P. Morgan cases
were transferred to the MDL case.  CMS Energy was dismissed from
the Learjet, Heartland, and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other
CMS Energy defendants remain parties.  All CMS Energy defendants
were dismissed from the Breckenridge case in 2009.  It is expected
that the plaintiffs in this case will appeal this decision after
all claims against defendants have been dismissed.  At this time,
there is no pending appeal.  In June 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera
Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case; the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM; and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was consolidated with the Newpage case.  These
two consolidated cases remain pending only against CMS ERM.
Pending before the court in all of the MDL cases are the
defendants' renewed motions for summary judgment based on FERC
preemption.  In all but the J.P. Morgan case, there are also
pending plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  These
motions are not yet decided.  In October 2010, the MDL court
entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their complaint to add a federal Sherman Antitrust Act claim.
These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  Defenses are being pursued vigorously, which could
result in the dismissal of the cases completely, but CMS Energy is
unable to predict the outcome of these matters.  If the outcome is
unfavorable, these cases could have a material adverse impact on
CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of
operations.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Suit in Mediation for Possible Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a putative class action lawsuit alleging non-compliance
by Colgate-Palmolive Co. of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act is under non-binding mediation to determine whether
the action can be settled, 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.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.  Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation.  The complaint in the consolidated
action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not
include a claim for age discrimination.  The relief sought
includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre-
and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
This action has not been certified as a class action as yet.  The
parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine
whether the action can be settled.  The Company and the Plan
intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties be
unable to reach a settlement.

Colgate-Palmolive Company -- http://www.colgate.com/-- is a
leading global consumer products company, tightly focused on Oral
Care, Personal Care, Home Care and Pet Nutrition.  Colgate sells
its products in over 200 countries and territories around the
world under such internationally recognized brand names as
Colgate, Palmolive, Mennen, Softsoap, Irish Spring, Protex,
Sorriso, Kolynos, Elmex, Tom's of Maine, Ajax, Axion, Fabuloso,
Soupline and Suavitel, as well as Hill's Science Diet and Hill's
Prescription Diet.


CRYOLIFE INC: Defends Two Class Suits Related to Cardiogenesis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cryolife, Inc., is defending itself against two class action
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against the Company's acquisition of
Cardiogenesis, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On April 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed separate purported class
actions against Cardiogenesis, its directors, CryoLife, and Merger
Sub.  The suits were filed in connection with the parties' Merger
Agreement and CryoLife's tender offer for shares of Cardiogenesis.
The plaintiffs' allegations in the lawsuits are contained in two
separate civil complaints.  These complaints allege that the board
of directors of Cardiogenesis breached their fiduciary duties to
Cardiogenesis by seeking to sell Cardiogenesis through an
allegedly unfair process, for an unfair price, and on unfair
terms.  The complaints also allege that Cardiogenesis, CryoLife,
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breach by the directors of
Cardiogenesis of those fiduciary duties.  The suits seek various
equitable reliefs that could delay or enjoin the tender offer or
the merger of Merger Sub and Cardiogenesis, based on allegations
regarding the process by which offers or potential offers were
evaluated by Cardiogenesis, and also seek monetary damages, as
well as fees and expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys and
experts.


DEAN FOODS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss granted preliminary
approval on May 4 to a revised Dean Foods settlement in the class
action lawsuit being brought on behalf of Northeast dairy farmers,
clearing the way for the plaintiffs to begin notifying farmers of
the $30 million payment Dean has agreed to make to settle the
case.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, which include two Vermont dairy
farmers, have estimated that about 8,000 farmers will be entitled
to a share of the settlement.  They have characterized the case as
the first step in breaking Dean's grip on the milk market,
restoring competition to the marketplace.  Dean is the largest
milk processor in the country.

The two other defendants in the lawsuit, Dairy Farmers of America,
and its marketing arm, Dairy Marketing Services, have refused to
settle, and have said the lawsuit is pitting dairy farmer against
dairy farmer.  Dairy Farmers of America is the largest dairy
farmer cooperative in the nation and includes hundreds of Vermont
dairy farmers.

About two dozen farmers belonging to the Dairy Farmers of America
coop attended an April 15 hearing on the case in Reiss's court to
show their opposition to the lawsuit.  The farmers have said a
provision of the lawsuit that would require Dean to buy at least
10% of its milk from a source other than Dairy Farmers of America
would ultimately lead to lower milk prices and could put some of
them out of business.

But as Judge Reiss noted in her decision on May 4, that provision
of the lawsuit was dropped in its revised version, clearing the
way, in her opinion, for the $30 million settlement to go forward.
Judge Reiss noted in her opinion that the requirement to buy milk
from sources other than Dairy Farmers of America "has been the
sole source of objections to the Dean Settlement."

"We're pleased with the Court's decision and believe this is a
very good outcome for the farmers represented in this case," said
Benjamin Brown, Esq., of Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, PLLC, the
Washington D.C. law firm bringing the lawsuit.  "We are continuing
to move the case forward against the remaining defendants, DFA and
DMS, and expect to complete factual discovery in the case in the
next month."

Attorneys for Dairy Farmers of America were still reviewing Judge
Reiss' decision on May 5.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Cavitron(R) Suit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against DENTSPLY International, Inc.,
in California remains 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.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class is defined as
California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  This case has been
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit originally filed by Carole Hildebrand and Robert Jaffin 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.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The Complaint asserts putative class
action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the
Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed
and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification to
which the Company has filed its response.  The Company also filed
other motions, including a motion to dismiss the claims of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court granted
this motion for lack of standing of the individuals and did not
allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their
corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class
representative in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction
of the U.S. District Court.  The plaintiffs have now filed another
complaint in which they named the corporate practices of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The Company has
moved to dismiss this complaint.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Class Suits Remain Pending in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two separate putative class action lawsuits filed against
FirstMerit Corporation and FirstMerit Bank, N.A., remain pending
in Ohio, 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.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against the Corporation and the Bank.  The
complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions.  The complaints seek actual
damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

FirstMerit Corporation is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with assets of $10.4 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2007, and 160 banking offices and 176 ATMs in 25 Ohio and
Western Pennsylvania counties.  The Company provides a complete
range of banking and other financial services to consumers and
businesses through its core operations.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Bank Unit Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly owned subsidiary bank of FirstMerit Corp. continues to
defend itself in a putative class action lawsuit pending in Ohio,
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.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Bank, N.A.  The breach of
contract complaint was brought as a putative class action on
behalf of Ohio commercial borrowers who had allegedly had the
interest they owed calculated improperly by using the 365/360
method.  The complaint seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive
relief and attorney fees.

FirstMerit Corporation is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with assets of US$10.4 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2007, and 160 banking offices and 176 ATMs in 25 Ohio and
Western Pennsylvania counties. The Company provides a complete
range of banking and other financial services to consumers and
businesses through its core operations.


GEROVA FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a securities fraud
class action against Gerova Financial Group Ltd. and certain of
its officers.  The class action (11-cv-3081), pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of a class of purchasers of GFC securities
between January 8, 2010, and February 23, 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 Gerova securities during
the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until July 5, 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.
          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 throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including but
not limited to the fact that a substantial portion of the assets
it acquired pursuant to several transactions in January 2010 were
impaired, illiquid, and worth far less than their recorded value;
and that some of these acquisitions were with companies controlled
by or affiliated with Gerova's top officers.

On January 10, 2011, Dalrymple Finance LLC published a report,
critical of Gerova, labeling it as "a game of smoke and mirrors,"
and specifically questioning the valuation of the assets acquired
in January 2010.  On this news, Gerova shares dropped $1.06 or
nearly 4%, to close at $26.98.

On February 10, 2011, after the market closed, the Company
announced the resignation of the Company's chairman of the board,
chief executive officer and directors.  On this news, Gerova
shares declined by $9.31 or 59% for four consecutive trading
sessions, to close at $6.39 on February 16, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, the NYSE halted the stock at $5.28 citing
the need for "additional information relative to operations,
management restructuring, and business plans."  Gerova's shares
were subsequently delisted.  On April 18, 2011, the Company
announced its intention to delist from the NYSE.

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


HAWAII: Substitute Teacher Class Action May Cost $70 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Brown, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that Hawaii
lawmakers just balanced the budget.  But a class action lawsuit
could cost the state $70 million more that legislators didn't
account for.

The state of Hawaii may need to fork out the money to part-time
teachers who say they'd been underpaid for seven years by the
Department of Education.

The April 25 ruling comes at a time when the state has little
money to spare.

Hawaii lawmakers have spent much of the legislative session
grappling over how to make up a $1.3 billion deficit.
On April 29, they achieved that goal by passing a series of tax
bills and making cuts to state departments.

The exact amount the state will owe has not yet been determined.
But plaintiff Dianne Kawashima's attorney told Civil Beat the
figure will likely be in the tens of millions.

"We won a summary judgment establishing that the DOE underpaid
part-time teachers from 2004-2011," Paul Alston, Esq., with the
law firm Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, wrote in an e-mail on April 29.
"The damages are approximately $54 million."

Alston said he will also seek interest damages, which could amount
to as much as $17 million.  Including attorney's fees, the state
could be looking at a final penalty in excess of $70 million.

Jim Halvorson, Esq., a deputy attorney general and co-council
representing the state in the case, said the battle may not be
over.

"There was a motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs, which
was granted," Mr. Halvorson told Civil Beat.  "But the order has
not been issued yet . . . The summary judgment was only as to
liability.  There's been no determination of damages.  So what's
going to happen next, I'm not at liberty to say.  We have to see
what the order looks like and make a determination."

Mr. Halvorson said the case has not yet gone through an appeal
process -- and he doesn't know that it necessarily will -- but
that it's "still in the works."

Ms. Kawashima filed the case in 2006, alleging that the Department
of Education had underpaid her and thousands of other substitute
teachers for years.  She told the Honolulu Advertiser at the time
that the DOE had "cheated" her and owed her years of back pay.

The case is just one of several class action lawsuits Gov. Neil
Abercrombie inherited when he took office.  In total, lawsuit
penalties against the state could amount to more than $200
million, depending on outcomes.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: To Share Judgment With Hillenbrand
-----------------------------------------------------
Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., entered into a judgment sharing agreement
with Hillenbrand, Inc., to lessen the costs associated with an
antitrust class action lawsuit, according to the Company's April
28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former
Batesville Casket Company, Inc., subsidiary (now wholly owned by
Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home businesses.

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they
seek to represent, based on claims of approximately one million
casket purchases by the purported class members.

The Company and Hillenbrand, Inc., have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between the Company
and Hillenbrand, Inc.


ILLINOIS: Department of Corrections Sued Over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on May 4 in federal district
court in Chicago in response to the systemic discrimination by the
Illinois Department of Corrections and its failure to provide
accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing prisoners.  Denials of
accommodations include the IDOC's refusal to provide American Sign
Language interpreters, technological assistance and other
alternate forms of communication.  Without these accommodations,
deaf and hard of hearing prisoners are endangered and deprived of
meaningful access to religious services, healthcare, educational
and vocational programs, telephones, televisions, library
services, disciplinary proceedings, grievances and pre-release
programs.

The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP,
serving as lead counsel and providing representation on a pro bono
basis; two Illinois non-profit legal advocacy organizations, Equip
for Equality and Uptown People's Law Center; and the National
Association of the Deaf.  The lawsuit asserts claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the 1st,
8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Robert L. Michels, Esq., a partner at Winston & Strawn who is
leading the efforts of a team of firm lawyers involved in the
matter, stated: "Winston & Strawn was previously successful in
bringing similar litigation on behalf of deaf prisoners in
Virginia.  We are proud to partner with Equip for Equality, Uptown
People's Law Center, and the National Association for the Deaf in
ensuring that the legal rights of deaf and hard of hearing
prisoners in Illinois are also protected."

The IDOC's failures have forced deaf and hard of hearing prisoners
to serve their time largely isolated from, and unable to
effectively communicate with, other human beings.  These prisoners
have even gone hungry and missed out on crucial visitors because
they could not hear the announcements to leave their cells.

"This class action will force the State of Illinois to do what it
is unwilling to do voluntarily: accommodate prisoners who are deaf
or hard of hearing and comply with federal law," said Laura
Miller, Managing Attorney at Equip for Equality.

The IDOC regularly jeopardizes these prisoners' safety.  For
example, the IDOC has not made auditory safety alerts accessible
to deaf prisoners.  Without accessible safety alerts, these
prisoners are unaware of vital warnings -- fire alarms, warning
shots and orders to lie down to avoid being shot.  In addition,
without the provision of communication options, deaf prisoners are
forced to rely on other inmates to interpret and communicate for
them, placing them in constant danger of exploitation.

"Prisons are unsafe, dangerous, uncomfortable places to stay under
the best of circumstances.  For prisoners who cannot hear, prison
is a nightmare.  Locked in a cell, completely dependent on your
cellmate to let you know what is going on around you, unable to
attend classes, religious services, talk to a doctor when you are
ill, defend yourself when accused of violating a prison rule, and
unable to talk with other prisoners -- they are completely and
profoundly isolated," stated Alan Mills of Uptown People's Law
Center.

The lawsuit seeks an order from the court to remedy the IDOC's
past violations of federal law and to prevent future violations.

Howard A. Rosenblum, CEO at the National Association of the Deaf,
points out the national importance of this case: "By refusing to
provide communication access, prisons like those operated by the
IDOC isolate deaf and hard of hearing prisoners from any basic
human interaction for the entire duration of their sentence.  This
case serves as a warning to all prisons to comply with federal
law."

Reference:  U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Holmes et al. v. Godinez et al.

A copy of the Complaint can be found at
http://www.equipforequality.org

Organizations representing the plaintiffs:

                     About Winston & Strawn LLP

Winston & Strawn LLP -- http://www.winston.com-- is an
international law firm with nearly 1,000 attorneys among 15
offices in Beijing, Charlotte, Chicago, Geneva, Hong Kong,
Houston, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, New York, Newark, Paris, San
Francisco, Shanghai, and Washington, D.C.   Formed in 1853, the
firm not only represents Fortune 500 companies and other clients
on major business-related matters, it also has a strong commitment
to providing pro bono representation, including in matters
involving civil rights, community economic development, criminal
defense, First Amendment/free speech, contested guardianship,
landlord/tenant, not-for-profit corporate organization, political
asylum, post-conviction relief in death penalty cases, and public
assistance.

                    About Equip for Equality

Equip for Equality -- http://www.equipforequality.org-- is a
private, not-for-profit entity designated in 1985 by the Governor
of Illinois to administer the federally mandated protection and
advocacy system for safeguarding the rights of people with
physical and mental disabilities in Illinois.

                 About Uptown People's Law Center

The Uptown People's Law Center is a not-for-profit legal clinic
located on Chicago's north-side, founded in 1975.  In addition to
providing legal representation, advocacy and education for poor
and working people in Uptown and surrounding communities, the Law
Center also provides legal assistance to people housed in
Illinois' prisons with issues related to their confinement.

              About National Association of the Deaf

The National Association of the Deaf, established in 1880, --
http://www.nad.org-- is the nation's premier organization
safeguarding the civil, human and linguistics rights of deaf and
hard of hearing individuals in the USA.

Contacts:

          Robert L. Michels, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn
          Telephone: 312-558-5255
          E-mail: rmichels@winston.com

          Laura Miller, Esq.
          Equip for Equality
          Telephone: 773-936-6267
          E-mail: laura@equipforequality.org

          Alan Mills, Esq.
          Uptown People's Law Center
          Telephone: 773-769-1411
          E-mail: alanmills@comcast.net

          Howard Rosenblum, Esq.
          National Association of the Deaf
          Telephone: 301-587- 1788
          E-mail: howard.rosenblum@nad.org


INTELLIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc. (NIVS), and
certain of its officers.  The class action (11-cv-03857), pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
is on behalf of a class of purchasers of NIVS securities during
the period from March 24, 2010, through and including March 25,
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 NIVS 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.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Company had
inaccurately recorded certain transactions; (2) there were
discrepancies in the Company's accounts receivables; (3) the
Company was engaged in illegal acts involving the Company's
accounting records and bank statements; (4) as a result, the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial results were false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On March 25, 2011, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee
of the Board of the Directors had approved the dismissal of NIVS'
independent auditor, MaloneBailey LLP.  Furthermore, the Company
indicated that MaloneBailey had provided a letter to the Audit
Committee, advising that the independent auditor had encountered
issues and concerns that, in their view, required additional
information and procedures, including the initiation of an
independent investigation, in order to verify the accuracy of
certain transactions and balances recorded on the Company's
financial statements and records.  Moreover, MaloneBailey informed
the Company in a letter of resignation that they "were unable to
rely on management's representations as they relate to previously
issued financial statements and [they] could no longer support its
audit opinion dated March 24, 2010, related to [their] audit of
consolidated financial statements of the Company and its
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009, included in the Company's
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009."  According to the Company, MaloneBailey "based its
resignation on what it characterized illegal acts involving the
Company's accounting records and bank statements and discrepancies
in accounts receivable."

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C. -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- 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.
See www.pomerantzlaw.com.


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Reaches Deal to Settle "Cardenas" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., has entered into a deal to settle
a class action wage and hour lawsuit styled Cardenas et. al. v
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., 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 24, 2011.

In fiscal 2010, a class action wage and hour lawsuit was filed
against John B. Sanfilippo in the Northern District of Illinois
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The plaintiffs claimed damages under the IMWL in an amount
equal to all unpaid back pay alleged to be owed to the plaintiffs,
prejudgment interest on the back pay, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and an injunction precluding the Company from
violating the IMWL.  The plaintiffs additionally claimed damages
under the FLSA in an amount equal to all back pay alleged to be
owed to the plaintiffs, prejudgment interest on the back pay,
liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid back wages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint in which they alleged that the Company
maintained and maintains a practice regarding the rounding of
employees' time entries which violates the IMWL and the FLSA.
Following mediation during the third quarter of fiscal 2011, the
Company now expects to settle the class action wage and hour
lawsuit for approximately $2,600 in the coming months.
Consequently, the Company increased its current liability by
$1,460 during the third quarter of fiscal 2011 to $2,600, all of
which was recorded during the first thirty-nine weeks of fiscal
2011.  The Company agreed to the $2,600 settlement amount in the
third quarter in order to cover an expanded scope of wage and hour
claims, plaintiffs and facilities.

The settlement is conditioned on the filing of a third amended
complaint and the execution of a settlement agreement and release.
The settlement will not become final and effective unless and
until the court has issued a final settlement approval -- such
approval is anticipated in the coming months.


LIVINGSOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Expiration Dates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boyan Josic, writing for DailyDeal Media, reports that
LivingSocial is being sued in a class action lawsuit in Minnesota
for allegedly violating state and federal laws prohibiting the
sale of gift by certificates with expiration dates.  Amy Schultz,
a LivingSocial customer, is claiming the company misled "tens of
millions of consumers nationwide" creating a sense of urgency with
mass "Daily Deal" e-mails promising bargains for buyers who acted
fast.

"LivingSocial and its retail partners bank on the fact that
consumers often will not redeem 'livingsocial' gift certificates
before the limited expiration period," her attorneys said in the
April 29 complaint.  "Therefore, many consumers are left with
nothing, despite having already paid for the particular service or
product."

Ms. Schultz has filed the lawsuit on behalf of all LivingSocial
customers, asking the federal court to allow her to pursue the
claim in a group, or class-action, suit.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a purported class action complaint filed by
Angela Tyler against Liz Claiborne, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's April 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2011.

A purported class action complaint captioned Angela Tyler
(individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) v.
Liz Claiborne, Inc, Trudy F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 28, 2009, against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, William L. McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a
former President of the Company.  The complaint alleges certain
violations of the federal securities laws, claiming misstatements
and omissions surrounding the Company's wholesale business.  The
Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit, and the Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.  The Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint on October 4, 2010.

No updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC filing.

                         About Liz Claiborne

Liz Claiborne Inc. -- http://lizclaiborneinc.com-- designs and
markets a global portfolio of retail-based premium brands
including Juicy Couture, Kate Spade, Lucky Brand and Mexx.  The
Company also has a refined group of department store-based brands
with strong consumer franchises including the Monet family of
brands, Kensie, Kensiegirl, Mac & Jac, and the licensed DKNY(R)
Jeans and DKNY(R) Active brands.  The Dana Buchman and Axcess
brands are sold at Kohl's, and beginning in Fall 2010, the Liz
Claiborne and Claiborne brands will be available at JCPenney and
the Liz Claiborne New York brand designed by Isaac Mizrahi will be
available at QVC and internationally.


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Court Approves Settlement on a Final Basis
------------------------------------------------------------
The court approved a settlement, which puts to rest a class action
lawsuit filed against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., according
to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26,
2011.

Beginning on May 22, 2006, several derivative actions were filed
against certain current and former executive officers and
directors of the Company alleging, among other things, wrongful
conduct of back-dating stock options as well as security law
violations, and named the Company as a nominal defendant against
whom the plaintiffs sought no recovery.

The parties to the derivative litigation in the Delaware Court of
Chancery entered into a stipulated settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery on September 16, 2008.
All derivative actions pending in the California Superior Court
have since been dismissed, with prejudice.  Net settlement
proceeds of $18.9 million were received by the Company on
September 10, 2009.  The Company recognized an increase to
additional paid in capital of $2.5 million related to excess gains
while the remainder of the proceeds of $16.4 million was recorded
as a reduction to Other operating (income) expenses, net.

On February 6, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain former officers and employees in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging claims under the federal securities laws based on certain
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the Company's public
disclosures concerning its stock option accounting practices.  On
June 18, 2010, lead plaintiffs and the Company entered into a
stipulation of settlement settling the action and providing for
the payment of $173.0 million in cash by the Company.  On
September 29, 2010, the Court issued a Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals dismissed a class action lawsuit filed
against Microsoft Corp. in British Columbia, 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.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against Microsoft Corp. in various state,
federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of its PC operating system and
certain other software products.  Microsoft Corp. obtained
dismissals of damages claims of indirect purchasers under federal
law and in 15 states.  Courts refused to certify classes in two
additional states.  Microsoft Corp. has reached agreements to
settle all claims that have been made to date in 19 states and the
District of Columbia.

The settlements in all states have received final court approval.
Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers
that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software.  The total
value of vouchers that Microsoft Corp. may issue varies by state.
Microsoft Corp. will make available to certain schools a
percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-
half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The total value of
vouchers Microsoft Corp. ultimately issues will depend on the
number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers.
The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is approximately $2.7
billion.  The actual costs of these settlements will be less than
that maximum amount, depending on the number of class members and
schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.  Microsoft Corp.
estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state overcharge
class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and $2.0
billion.  At March 31, 2011, Microsoft Corp. has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $585 million,
which reflects its estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less
payments made to date of approximately $1.3 billion mostly for
vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  On
April 15, 2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the
class certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that
indirect purchasers do not have a claim.  Microsoft Corp. expects
the plaintiffs will seek review by the Canadian Supreme Court.
The other two actions have been stayed.


MISSION, CANADA: B.C. Civil Liberties Backs Grow-Up Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Hall of Vancouver Sun reports that the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association announced on May 3 that it will support a class-action
lawsuit against Mission over residential inspections for marijuana
grow operations.

The district of Mission's controversial Controlled Substances
Property Bylaw has resulted in homeowners being wrongfully charged
with violations of the bylaw, even though no marijuana grow
operation was found in their residence, says the report.

"We have had dozens of complaints," said Micheal Vonn, policy
director of the BCCLA.  "The process is fundamentally unfair."

Mission suspended the bylaw last January after a number of
complaints from residents who were hit with hefty fines but did
not have grow operations in their homes.

Resident Len Gratto, for example, was billed C$5,200 for an
inspection that found he was growing flowers and cucumbers in the
basement of his Mission home.

Another resident, Stacy Gowanlock, was slapped with a C$5,200 fee
after his house was inspected in 2009.  He is part of the class-
action lawsuit that was expected to be filed last week by
Vancouver lawyer Alexander Markham-Zantvoort, Esq.

The lawyer was set to attend a BCCLA press conference on May 4 to
talk about the proposed class-action.

Some residents hit with C$5,200 fines feel they have had their
reputations ruined.  At least one has lost his home after the bank
learned of the violation enforcement by Mission, Mr. Vonn said.

"It goes on title and the property is devalued," Mr. Vonn
explained on May 3, adding some people have had trouble crossing
into the U.S. because the bylaw violation becomes part of the
criminal history.

"The fallout has been extremely serious," he said.  "I can't tell
you how many people have broken down crying because they have
violated the bylaw but were innocent."

He said the bylaw is unfair because residents don't have any
process of appeal.

"It's the imaginary grow-op bylaw," Mr. Vonn said.

He said the Mission bylaw is supposed to enforce safety
inspections of homes and flows from the provincial Safety
Standards Act, which allows hydro to disclose high users of
electricity to municipalities.

"We've had long-standing concerns about the safety inspections
themselves," Mr. Vonn said.  "It's not about safety -- it's about
looking for drug operations."

Safety inspections were not supposed to be an "end-run" around the
police need for a search warrant to look for a suspected drug
operations, he said.

"These are very new programs and new areas of law," Mr. Vonn said.

Susan Lazaruk, writing for The Province, reports that Mission
municipal council in January placed a 30-day moratorium on the
searches, which Mr. Gowanlock said has been extended to at least
May 24.

He said he predicts the district won't return to the inspections,
considering the lawsuit.

"But the damage has already been done," he said.

In addition to the costs, homeowners who have been targeted have
lost market value in their homes, been subject to ridicule by
their neighbors, and had their children taunted at school -- and
some have even been forced to sell their homes, he said.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Wass-Smith" Suit in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Wass and Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC
International, Inc., according to the Company's April 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2011.

As previously disclosed, the Company is a defendant in a lawsuit
entitled Jeffrey Wass and Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC International,
Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-2254-JWL-KGS, in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas.  The lawsuit alleges a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on
behalf of plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by
NPC in 28 states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and
similarly situated workers employed in states in which the state
minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that NPC deprived plaintiffs and
other NPC delivery drivers of minimum wages by providing
insufficient reimbursements for automobile and other job-related
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items.

On March 28, 2011, the court granted conditional collective action
certification under the FLSA.  NPC has provided the names and
addresses of potential opt-in class members to Plaintiffs, and a
third-party administrator is to mail a notice to each potential
opt-in.  From the date the notices are mailed, the potential opt-
ins have 90 days to elect to become members of the class.  The
Court set April 27, 2011, for a hearing to set a schedule for
merits based discovery, decertification, pretrial and trial
settings.  On March 23, 2011, in response to NPC's summary-
judgment motion, Plaintiffs' filed an expert declaration in
relation to NPC's reimbursement model.  On April 14, 2011, the
Court ruled that it would hold the Wass summary-judgment motion in
abeyance until the merits process is completed.  As a result, at
this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the
lawsuit, any possible loss or possible range of loss associated
with the lawsuit or any potential effect on the Company's
business, results of operations or financial condition.  However,
the Company believes the lawsuit is wholly without merit and will
defend itself from these claims vigorously.


OMNICARE INC: Continues to Defend "Spindler" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
OmniCare, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit entitled Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson
Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414,
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 April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), the Company
and certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal
antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of
certain arrangements between J&J and the Company.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Company violated these laws
by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J products.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 6, 2010.  On January 21, 2011, the court dismissed the
amended complaint and granted permission to file a new amended
complaint, which was filed in February 2011.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2011.  The
Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Omnicare, Inc., provides pharmacy
services, dispensing drugs to nursing homes, assisted-living
centers, and other long-term care facilities in the US and parts
of Canada.  The Company also provides clinical and financial
software and consulting services to long-term care facilities and
infusion and respiratory therapy for nursing home residents and
hospice patients.


SEALY CORP: Sued for Denying Warranty Coverage for Mattresses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sealy doesn't stand by its
guarantee for new mattresses, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Savett v. Sealy Corporation, Case No.
11-cv-00336 (M.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802-7376
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Megan E. Jones, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K. St., NW, Ste. 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  mjones@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com


SEMGROUP: Settles Class Action Over Improper Trading
----------------------------------------------------
NewsOn6.com reports that the founder and former CEO of SemGroup
has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit.

Tom Kivisto and six other men connected to SemGroup have agreed to
pay part of a $28 million settlement, according to documents filed
in federal court on May 3, 2011.

Mr. Kivisto and the other individuals will pay $22.8 million.
SemGroup Energy Partners, now called Blueknight Energy Partners,
will turn over $5.2 million dollars' worth of stock.

The class involved in the lawsuit includes anyone who bought or
held stock in SemGroup Energy Partners from July 17, 2007, through
July 17, 2008.

Mr. Kivisto had co-founded SemGroup in 2001 and it became one of
Tulsa's energy giants.

That changed in the summer of 2008.  As the price of oil climbed
well above $100 a barrel, rumors about problems with the company
started to take hold on Wall Street.

They came to a head on July 17, 2008, when shares of the company
lost half of their value.  The company declared bankruptcy,
Mr. Kivisto was eventually fired and his energy empire was gone.

Bankruptcy proceedings revealed the personal trading company
Mr. Kivisto owned had borrowed several hundred million dollars
from SemGroup.  Allegations of improper trading began to surface,
and then Mr. Kivisto and SemGroup Energy Partners were hit with
the class action lawsuit.

The suit claims statements made by SemGroup Energy Partners
"regarding its internal controls, management, and stable revenues
from its parent, SemGroup LP, were false and misleading because,
unbeknownst to investors, SemGroup was actually engaged in risky,
speculative and unauthorized trading in crude oil and other
commodities."

Under the settlement agreed to on May 3, 2011, Mr. Kivisto and the
six other individuals admit no wrongdoing.  In fact, they maintain
that all the claims against them are without merit.

The individuals listed in documents as being part of the
settlement are:

    Tom Kivisto, former SemGroup CEO
    Gregory Wallace, former SemGroup CFO
    Kevin L. Foxx
    Michael J. Brochetti
    Alex G. Stallings
    Brian F. Billings
    W. Anderson Bishop

SemGroup LP, meanwhile, emerged from bankruptcy in December.

SemGroup Energy Partners is now known as Blueknight Energy
Partners and has a separate management team.

The settlement of the class action lawsuit will become final when
federal judge Gregory Frizzell holds a hearing, which can happen
no sooner than 90 days from May 3.


SONY CORP: Faces Seventh Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Turano, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sony Corporation of America, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02206 (N.D.
Calif. May 5, 2011), is filed on behalf of the millions of users
of defendants' Sony PlayStation Network and Qriocity Services
("PSN") and Sony Line Entertainment Systems ("SOE") "whose
personally identifiable information was disclosed to one or more
criminals in what has been described as one of the biggest and
most serious consumer data security breaches in Internet history."

Mr. Turano says that because of defendants' negligence, hackers
were able to access PlayStation Network, Qriocity and SOE consumer
account information between April 17 and April 19, 2011,
and steal personally identifiable information including consumers'
names, addresses and credit card numbers.  Defendants, however,
waited until April 27, 2011, to disclose that the PSN security had
been breached and that hackers had stolen PSN members' personally
identifiable information.

On May 2, 2011, Sony revealed a second security breach that had
occurred during the same April 17 to 19 period, this one involving
its SOE, which features multiplayer online games such as
"EverQuest" and "DC Universe Online," and suspended service on
that system.  Sony stated that this breach compromised personal
account information including a user's name, address, e-mail
address, gender, birth date, phone number, login name, and
password.  The breach affects an additional 25 million Sony
account holders and is believed to also include credit card
information, Mr. Turano relates.

Plaintiff Frank Turano resides in Staten Island, New York.
Plaintiff created user accounts on the PSN and provided PSN with
his name, address, user name, password, credit card number and
other personally identifiable information.  Plaintiff used the PSN
account to buy and pay for products and services from Sony.

Sony Corporation of America (Sony USA) is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business located at 550 Madison
Avenue, in New York, New York.

Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (SCEA) is a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located
in Foster City, California.

Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (Sony Computer)
is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCEA.  Sony Computer owns the
PlayStation(R) brand and operates the online and network services,
the PSN, the PlayStation(R)Store, and the Qriocity service.  Sony
Computer serves as headquarters for all North American operations
and has offices in Foster City, San Diego, and Santa Monica,
California and in Bend, Oregon.  On April 1st, Sony
Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) handed over all PlayStation
Network responsibilities to Sony Network Entertainment America,
Inc.

Sony Network Entertainment America Inc. (SNEA) is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com
                  dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  pseidman@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com

               - and -

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          LAX LLP
          380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150
          Email: rlax@lax-law.com


SONY CORP: To Investigate Data Breach Following Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fogarty, writing for ITworld, reports that Sony is
scrambling to make up for a series of hacks to its Playstation and
MMORPG networks that compromised more than 100 million accounts,
at least 25 million of which included enough data to identify
customers individually, the company admitted in a letter to
Congress on May 3.

It also said it is cooperating with the FBI, hired computer-
forensics and investigation specialists Data Forte, which is
headed by a former agent of the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative
Service to try to identify the attackers.

It hired more investigators from e-discovery and cyber-
investigation consultants at Guidance Software and Protivity -- a
forensic-security consulting company that is a division of global
recruiting and consulting firm Robert Half International.

That's a lot of resources to throw at an investigation.  At least
a normal investigation.  One for a breach this size needs a few
more bodies than most.

It also requires a little more accountability than Sony has
provided so far, according to Connecticut Senator Richard
Blumenthal, who wrote Sony on May 3 to ask for more details about
compromised accounts and to let it know he's asking the U.S.
Attorney General's office to investigate in addition to all the
other players.

Sony's letter to Congress also mentioned it discovered May 1 that
another network may also have been breached at some time in the
past without its knowledge.

Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes it much more
difficult to bring class-action suits against companies in the
U.S., Sony will almost certainly end up ponying up a lot of direct
compensation to customers, in addition to the loss of reputation
and business it will no doubt see.

A Toronto law firm has announced a class-action suit in Canada,
representing a 21-year-old Ontario native as plaintiff.

The amount an average Canadian 21-year-old can lose by having a
credit card compromised is limited, but there is a decent-sized
pool of other potential victims who might expand the class-action
a bit.

So far, except for its offer of a month's free subscription to a
service that may be the cause of the identity theft, Sony hasn't
done much to make things up to its customers, despite its own epic
failure.

Apologies, lawyers, investigators and cooperation with Congress
may help keep it out of regulatory trouble.  Making things right
with customers is what will keep it from losing their accounts as
fast to competitors as it did to hackers.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an antitrust class action
claims Southwest Airlines' $1.4 billion acquisition of Airtran
Airways will reduce or eliminate competition in low-cost airlines
between small cities.

A copy of the Complaint in Taleff, et al. v. Southwest Airlines
Co., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02179 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/Airline.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
          Theresa D. Moore, Esq.
          Thomas P. Pier, Esq.
          Jamie L. Miller, Esq.
          ALIOTO LAW FIRM
          225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-8900
          E-mail tpier@aliotolaw.com
                 tmoore@aliotolaw.com
                 jmiller@aliotolaw.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Environmental Groups Intervene in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that the defendant fighting a proposed federal class action over
alleged water contamination caused by the weed killer atrazine
contends that it has "serious doubts" about why two environmental
groups are asking to intervene in the suit brought by the City of
Greenville, Ill. and to unseal documents in the case.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., filed its opposition to the
intervention move filed jointly by the Environmental Law & Policy
Center of Chicago and the Prairie Rivers Network (ELPC/PRN)
April 21.

A week later, the two environmental groups filed their response to
that opposition, arguing that Syngenta is telling "fanciful
stories" alleging they have colluded with the plaintiffs.  The
response also claims Syngenta has not made its case to deny the
ELPC/PRN motion.

The federal case filed by Greenville involves what could be a
multi-state class of water providers who contend that atrazine
runs off farm fields into drinking water supplies that the
plaintiffs must then remediate.

The allegations are virtually identical to a series of suits filed
against Syngenta and other makers and distributors of atrazine
filed in 2004 in Madison County on behalf of Holiday Shores
Sanitary District.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Christie Deaton, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          One U.S. Bank Plaza,
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-4844
          E-mail: STillery@koreintillery.com
                  CDeaton@koreintillery.com

Syngenta is represented in both matters by:

          Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
          REEG LAWYERS, LLC
          One North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 888-828-4233
          E-mail: kreeg@reeglawfirm.com

The Syngenta case has advanced the furthest to date in Madison
County with discovery proceedings despite a series of disputes.

Most recently, Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge ordered
Syngenta to turn over documents related to work done on its behalf
by a Chicago public relations firm.

The judge also canceled a May 6 hearing.

Neither the Madison County nor the federal Syngenta class actions
have been certified to date.

Discovery has been proceeding in the federal case.

A settlement conference last month did not result in the end of
the suit.

The environmental groups filed to intervene in the case March 31.

The ELPC/PRN asked that the court unseal certain documents that
had been designated as privileged.

The court then went on to enter an order to show cause that
mandates Syngenta state why the documents should stay sealed.
That order was entered April 19.

Syngenta disputes the ELPC/PRN's right to intercede in the suit.

The company argues that the issue of unsealing the documents was
already before the court and parties before the environmental
groups' motion to intervene was filed.

It argues the groups haven't made their stake in the issue clear.

"Further, ELPC/PRN have not provided sufficient facts to justify
their intervention on behalf of their members who use water in
Illinois; and who have an interest in learning about 'the
potential effects of atrazine on those waters,' especially when
facts in the record raise serious doubts about their true purposes
for seeking intervention," Syngenta argues.

The defendant alleges that the publication of the documents could
create undue prejudice.

"Here, there is the possibility that the proposed interveners are
acting on behalf of the public interest, as they assert, but as a
shill for Plaintiffs."

Syngenta points to the timing of the intervention motion.
It was filed on the same day that the federal court denied a
Greenville motion to unseal certain documents.

It also disputes two affidavits supplied in support of the
ELPC/PRN motion to intervene signed by Sarah Wochos and Glynnis
Collins.

"These 'members,' however, are really officials of ELPC and PRN,"
Syngenta contends in the April 21 opposition motion.  It states
that Ms. Wochos is employed by the ELPC as a policy advocate while
Ms. Collins is named as the executive director the PRN.

"ELPC/PRN have presented no facts whatsoever that any member of
the public, as opposed to these two specific environmental groups,
has any interest in this litigation."

The ELPC/PRN deny the defendants' claims in their April 28
response.

"ELPC and Prairie Rivers are positioned differently here than both
the Plaintiffs and Defendants, who are primarily focused on the
merits of the underlying case," the response reads.  "By contrast,
ELPC and Prairie Rivers seek intervention for the limited and sole
purpose of advancing the right of public access to judicial
documents, as recognized in the Court's Order to Show Cause."

It also seeks to clear up what it calls Syngenta's "meritless"
allegations about its role in the suit.

"Syngenta's fanciful story of how ELPC and Prairie rivers somehow
joined with the Plaintiffs to attempt to somehow circumvent one of
Magistrate Judge Frazier's Orders is absurd."

The groups call attention to their years of efforts to publicize
pollution they claim is caused by atrazine and other pesticides.
They also argue there was no way they could know that Judge
Frazier would enter the order to show cause when he did.

"Syngenta's remaining accusations make no sense," the ELPC/PRN
writes.  "For example, ELPC and Prairie Rivers could not have
known that Magistrate Judge Frazier would deny the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Re-Designate Documents Under the Protective Order on the
same day they moved to intervene because the Court's Order . . .
was entered into the docket after ELPC's and Prairie Rivers'
Motion to Intervene."

They argue that Syngenta has not made a case for denying the
motion to intervene.

The ELPC/PRN is represented by:

          Howard A. Learner, Esq.
          35 E. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1300
          Chicago, IL 60601-2208

The federal case is case number 10-cv-188-JPG-PMF.

The 2004 Madison County case against Syngenta is case number
04-L-710.


TARGET CORP: Removes "Brown" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11566252
(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), was filed on March 17, 2011.
The plaintiff says the defendants requested and recorded private
information of customers who made retail, credit-card purchases
from defendants' stores in California, in violation of
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act., Cal. Civ. Code Section
1747.08.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Target Corporation, on
May 5 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02208 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Michelle Brown was a customer of defendants' retail
store operations in California.

Target Corporation is incorporated in Minnesota and is licensed to
do business and is doing substantial business in the State of
California and the County of Alameda.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562-6800
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                  hvr@asmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jared E. Peterson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JARED E. PETERSON
          2017 Lincoln Strut
          Berkeley, CA 94709
          Telephone: (510) 841-4462

Target Corporation is represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          E-mail: DmcDowell@mofo.com

               - and -

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: Tcheung@mofo.com


TREMONT RYE: May 11 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Christopher J. Gray of the Law Office of Christopher J.
Gray, P.C. in New York City informs investors that if they wish to
opt out of the settlement of a class action lawsuit (In re Tremont
Securities Law, State Law, and Insurance Litig., U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York Master Docket No. 08-
CV-11117 (TPG), hereinafter referred to as the "class action")
involving certain Rye and Tremont funds, they must do so by
May 11, 2011.  If final approval of the proposed settlement is
granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, investors who do not exercise their right to opt out
will become members of the certified class and may be eligible to
receive a distribution from the $100 million settlement fund
created in connection with the settlement.  A summary of the terms
of the settlement is accessible on the Firm's blog at
http://www.investorlawyers.net

Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. is not court-appointed
lead counsel and does not represent the plaintiffs in the class
action, and this news release has not been ordered or approved by
the Court. This news release is being distributed by the firm as
attorney advertising.

The class action alleges generally that Rye and Tremont funds were
invested with convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard L. Madoff without
having conducted due diligence into Madoff's investment strategy.
Certain customers of any brokerage/financial advisory firms who
sold them Rye or Tremont funds may have the right to pursue
individual claims in an investor arbitration proceeding before the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority as an alternative to
participating in the class action.

The Rye funds that are the subject of the class action settlement
are:

   (i) Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P.;

  (ii) Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P.;

(iii) Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund, L.P.;

  (iv) Rye Select Broad Market Insurance Fund, L.P.;

   (v) Rye Select Broad Market Portfolio Limited;

  (vi) Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio Limited; and

(vii) Broad Market XL Holdings Limited.

The Tremont Funds that are the subject of the class action
settlement are:

   (i) Tremont Market Neutral Fund L.P.;

  (ii) Tremont Market Neutral Fund II, L.P.;

(iii) Tremont Market Neutral Fund Limited;

  (iv) Tremont Opportunity Fund Limited;

  (iv) Tremont Opportunity Fund II L.P.;

   (v) Tremont Opportunity Fund III L.P.;

  (vi) Tremont Arbitrage Fund, L.P.;

(vii) Tremont Arbitrage Fund-Ireland; and

(viii) Tremont Strategic Insurance Fund, L.P.

Investors should be aware that if they file an individual or group
opt-out action or arbitration proceeding they will waive any
compensation they would have received in connection with the class
action settlement and will run the risk of collecting nothing
should their individual action or proceeding prove unsuccessful.

Investors seeking more information about their legal options in
connection with Rye or Tremont funds or other possible claims may
contact Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at the e-mail
address, address, fax number, or telephone number below.
Investors with questions about participating in the class action
settlement should contact the lead class counsel, not the Gray
firm.

CONTACT: Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
         460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
         New York, New York 10022
         Telephone: (212) 838-3221
         E-mail: newcases@investorlawyers.net
         Web site: http://www.investorlawyers.net


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Still Pending on Dealer Lawsuit Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court verdict in favor of Tyco International
Ltd.'s ADT Worldwide segment in a class action lawsuit remains
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 25, 2011.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation related to
accounting practices employed by the Company's former management,
which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company settled
with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related
parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the United
States and in other countries, including a class action lawsuit
filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging
breach of contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to
terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003.  In
February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's favor
dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims.  The plaintiffs
have appealed this verdict.  While it is not possible at this time
to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits, the Company does
not believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


U.S. HIGH-TECH COS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
disclosed that Siddharth Hariharan, a former software engineer at
Lucasfilm and founder and CEO of InEarth, on May 4 filed a class
action lawsuit charging that several of the nation's leading high-
tech companies violated antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the
pay of their employees and entering into "No Solicitation"
agreements with each other.  The complaint seeks restitution for
lost compensation and treble damages for the anti-competitive
employment practices of Adobe Systems Inc. (ADBE), Apple Inc.
(AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG), Intel Corporation (INTC), Intuit Inc.
(INTU), Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar.

"My colleagues at Lucasfilm and I applied our skills, knowledge,
and creativity to make the company an industry leader," stated
Mr. Hariharan.  "It's disappointing that, while we were working
hard to make terrific products that resulted in enormous profits
for Lucasfilm, senior executives of the company cut deals with
other premiere high tech companies to eliminate competition and
cap pay for skilled employees."

"Competition in the labor market results in better salaries,
enhanced career opportunities for employees, and better products
for consumers," stated Mr. Saveri.  "We estimate that because of
reduced competition for their services, compensation for skilled
employees at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and
Pixar was reduced by 10 to 15%.  These companies owe their
tremendous successes to the sacrifices and hard work of their
employees, and must take responsibility for their misconduct."

Factual Allegations

The complaint alleges the conspiracy among defendants consisted of
(1) agreements not to actively recruit each other's employees; (2)
agreements to provide notification when making an offer to
another's employee (without the knowledge or consent of that
employee); and (3) agreements to cap pay packages offered to
prospective employees at the initial offer.

Starting in 2005 with Lucasfilm and Pixar, and continuing until at
least 2009 with all defendants, the companies entered into "No
Solicitation" agreements with knowledge of the overall conspiracy
and with the intent to reduce employee compensation.  As
additional companies joined the conspiracy, competition among
participating companies for skilled labor decreased.  Compensation
of defendants' employees was less than what would have prevailed
in a properly functioning labor market where employers compete for
workers.

The complaint for damages follows an investigation last year by
the United States Department of Justice into similar misconduct by
defendants.  After that investigation was made public, defendants
agreed to end the anticompetitive agreements.  However, no
compensation was provided to employees of defendants.  The class
action was filed to seek lost pay for the employees who were
targeted by defendants' conspiracy.

The lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in Alameda
County.  Mr. Hariharan seeks to represent a nationwide class of
all employees who were harmed by defendants' unlawful agreements.
A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/03n3tN

Information for Affected Employees

Current and former employees of Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel,
Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar who wish to learn more about this
lawsuit or to report their experiences in seeking employment and
salary increases should visit http://is.gd/03n3tN

Or they many contact Lieff Cabraser attorney Dean Harvey at (415)
956-1000 or dharvey@lchb.com

There is no charge or obligation for our review of your claim.
All information will be kept strictly confidential as provided
under law.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a plaintiffs' law firm.
It has offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.  It
represents investors, consumers, employees, patients, and small
business owners.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Address Global Warming
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
five Cabinet departments -- Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
Energy and Defense -- fail to address human-caused global warming.

A copy of the Complaint in L., et al. v. Jackson, et al., Case No.
11-cv-00203 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/GloWarm.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Philip L. Gregory, Esq.
          Paul N. McCloskey, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 pgregory@cpmlegal.com
                 pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Julia Olson, Esq.
          WILD EARTH ADVOCATES
          2985 Adams ST.
          Eugene, OR 97405
          Telephone: (541) 344-7066
          E-mail: jaoearth@aol.com


UNITED STATES: Missouri Farmers Joins Levee Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
M.D. Kittle, writing for Southeast Missourian, reports that Terry
and Mary Beth Lee's farm stands -- or stood -- on the land that
their great-great grandfather settled in more than 200 years ago.
Their dad and mom worked the wheat-rich fields beneath Birds Point
levee up until they died within three months of each other in
1993, the year of the last 100-year flood.

"We vowed to them before they died that we were going to go to the
farm and build a house there," Mary Beth Lee said.

"Today, two centuries and a way of life, is submerged beneath a
river of water," she added.

The Lees, like so many Mississippi County residents, felt the
thunderous blast of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's detonations,
breaching the levee at Birds Point and drowning 100 homes and
scores of farms in the fertile floodway.

"I felt like when they blew that, it was all over," Mary Beth Lee
said.

But what could prove to be a lengthy legal battle against the U.S.
Government is only beginning.

The Lees joined about 80 property owners and farmers who live and
work in the spillway and surrounding areas at a meeting on May 3
afternoon with attorneys at the Clara Drinkwater Newnam Library in
Charleston, Mo.

In the morning of May 3, J. Michael Ponder, Esq., attorney at Cape
Girardeau-based Cook, Barkett, Ponder and Wolz, L.C. filed a
lawsuit in Washington, D.C. seeking potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars in damages for the farmers and property owners
in the spillway flooded out by the levee's breach.

The suit claims the property owners' Fifth Amendment rights
prohibiting a government taking without just compensation have
been violated by the Corps' action.  The litigation, which on
May 3 included 25 claimants, seeks class-action status.

"These folks have had their farms and livelihood sacrificed to
save the lives and homes of others up and down the river,"
Mr. Ponder said.  "We hope the federal government will help them
rebuild their lives, but our experience with government is that it
does not act unless it is forced to do so.

"The good intentions of government often are strangled by
gridlock; that's why we are filing this lawsuit," said the
attorney, who noted that he is from Charleston, Mo., in the shadow
of the spillway.

"I have cousins wiped out by this.  It hits me where it hurts.  I
want to help," Mr. Ponder said.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also named in the lawsuit,
Ponder said, since they breached the levee.  The Corps has said
flowage easements attached to the farmers' property deeds allowed
them to breach the levee.

But Mr. Ponder said that some of the parcels had no flowage
easements attached to deeds, and some were inadequate.  In some
cases, Mr. Ponder said, the Corps actions went beyond the scope of
the flowage easements.

Corps Spokesman Jim Pogue could not be reached for comment.


UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Repressive New Immigration Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service repots that Utah's
repressive new immigration law, based on Arizona's, is set to take
effect May 10, but should be enjoined as unconstitutional, civic
groups and a union say in a federal class action.  Gov. Gary
Herbert calls HB 497 a "Utah solution" to immigration -- an
argument similar to the one that got major sections of Arizona's
law enjoined as unconstitutional.

Two other laws -- HB 496 and 116 -- are also part of the "Utah
solution."

The plaintiffs say the laws "will cause widespread racial
profiling," undermine day-to-day police operations, force state
officers to arrest immigration suspects based on standards
different from federal ones, usurp the federal power to enforce
immigrations, and institute "a punitive immigration system" that
will require state ID for workers.

Virtually all of the contested elements track those of Arizona's
SB 1070.

Mr. Herbert, a Republican, is lead defendant in the case; the
other defendant is Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

Plaintiffs include the Utah Coalition of La Raza, the Service
Employees International Union, Workers' United Rocky Mountain
Joint Board (an SEIU local), the Latin American Chamber of
Commerce, Centro Civico Mexicano, the Salt Lake Brown Berets (a
youth group), three named individuals and three Does.

Mr. Herbert signed the laws on March 15.  Calling the laws a "Utah
solution," on immigration, Herbert said, "Absent any meaningful
leadership from the federal government on this issue, individual
states are being forced to take up the charge."

HB 497 allows state and local officers to arrest and detain people
on immigration-related grounds different from federal standards.

Officers will be required to demand immigration documentation from
people they stop, detain or arrest, and those arrested for serious
offenses must prove their citizenship.

People stopped by officers must present one of four qualifying
identity documents or face interrogation and detention.

The complaint states: "If allowed to take effect, HB 497 will
significantly harm Utahans, particularly Utahans of color.
According to law enforcement officials in Utah and elsewhere,
HB 497 will cause widespread racial profiling and will subject
many persons of color -- including countless U.S. citizens and
non-citizens who have federal permission to remain in the United
States -- to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures, and
arrests.  People of color in the state will be compelled to carry
additional paperwork on them at all times in order to prove to law
enforcement officials that their presence in the country is
approved by the federal government."

"HB 497 fundamentally changes the primary role and day-to-day
operations of law enforcement officials . . . [and] establishes a
de facto state alien registration scheme.

The class claims police officers' primary duties are to prevent
and detect crime, but HB 497 "undermines this state goal by
injecting an immigration enforcement directive into every police
encounter."

HB 496 and 116, creating a state program of work authorization and
rules for non-citizens to live, work and study in Utah are
scheduled to effect in 2012.

"The Utah legislature intentionally enacted HB 497 along with HB
116, and HB 469 as a comprehensive solution to the perceived
problem of the federal government's failure to regulate
immigration to Utah's liking. . . . Utah expressly intended not
only to intrude into an area of exclusive federal control but
indeed to supplant the federal government," the complaint states.

It adds: "These laws impermissibly encroach into an area of sole
federal authority and will interfere and conflict with the
comprehensive federal immigration system enacted by Congress and
implemented through a complex scheme of federal regulations and
policies."

Plaintiffs include a Mexican-born woman who married a U.S. citizen
and has lived in the United States for more than 20 years, has two
teen-age daughters and has "built her life in Utah."

Another plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, married a Guatemalan woman and
fears she could be taken from him if they are stopped while they
await a decision on her visa application.

This man, John Doe No. 2, says he "regularly drives undocumented
people to church on Tuesdays and Sundays.  He is concerned that if
HB 497 is implemented that he could be stopped accused of
smuggling immigrants."

The class claims that HB 497 violates the Supremacy Clause, the
4th Amendment, the right to travel, the Equal Protection Clause,
and the Utah Constitution's guarantee of uniform operations of
law.

The class seeks declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent
injunctions.

They have a host of attorneys, including Karen Tumlin with the
National Immigration Law Center, Cecillia Wang with the ACLU's
Immigrant Rights Project, and Darcy Goddard with the ACLU of Utah
Foundation.

A copy of the Complaint in Utah Coalition of La Raza, et al. v.
Herbert, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00401 (D. Utah), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/05/UtahImmig.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Shiu-Ming Cheer, Esq.
          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org
                  tumlin@nilc.org
                  cheer@nilc.org
                  keaney@nilc.org

               - and -

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          Elora Mukherjee, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: ojadawat@aclu.org
                  asegura@aclu.org
                  emukherjee@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          Katherine Desormeau, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANT'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org
                  kdesormeau@aclu.org

               - and -

          Darcy M. Goddard, Esq.
          Esperanza Granados, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC.
          335 North 300 West
          Salt Lake City, UT 84103
          Telephone: (801) 521-9862
          E-mail: dgoddard@acluutah.org
                  egranados@acluutah.org

               - and -

          Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
          MUNGLER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          E-mail: brad.phillips@mto.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal of Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc., is still awaiting a court of
appeal's decision regarding the dismissal of class action lawsuits
involving "intelligence gathering," according to the Company's
April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Verizon and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning its
alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks.
Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls
and that such action violates federal and/or state constitutional
and statutory law.  Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages.  On
August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Panel) ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated
and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Panel subsequently ordered that a
number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern
District of California.  Verizon believes that these lawsuits are
without merit.  On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of
these suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney
General of the United States of a specified certification.  On
September 19, 2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in
the consolidated proceedings.  Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009.  Plaintiffs
have appealed this dismissal, and the appeal remains pending in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Class Action Suit in Alabama Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit filed in Alabama, 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.

In July 2008, Waste Management was named as a defendant in a
purported class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County,
Alabama, which was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  This suit
pertains to Waste Management's fuel and environmental charge in
its customer service agreements and generally alleges that such
charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were
contrary to contract.  Waste Management filed a motion to dismiss
that was partially granted during the third quarter of 2010,
resulting in dismissal of the plaintiffs' RICO and national class
action claims.  Waste Management denies the claims in all of these
actions and intend to continue to oppose class certification and
will vigorously defend these matters.  Given the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible damages, if
any, be reasonably estimated.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug,
Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *