CAR_Public/110517.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 96

                             Headlines

ACCELRYS INC: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-Related Suit
ALBERTA, CANADA: Top Court Allows Nursing Home Suit to Proceed
ALBERTO-CULVER: Gets Court Nod on Unilever-Related Suit Settlement
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Berman DeValerio Files Class Action
AOL INC: Court Dismisses Claims in California Suit

BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Awaits Written Final Okay of "Weyl" Suit
BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 29
BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Motion to Consolidate 8 Class Suits Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Continues in Misclassification Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Continues in Suit Over On-Call Time

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Funds Settlement in Wage-Violation Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Says Calif. Suit Settlement Terms Immaterial
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Continues to Defend Canadian Horsepower Suits
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Appeal From Dismissal of USW Suit Due May 23
CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Unveils Moose Collision Statistics

CANWEST PUBLISHING: Ontario Court Okays Class Action Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: Sept. 30 Discovery Deadline Set in "Rojas" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stays Proceedings in "Lilley" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Disburses $40 Million Under "Amador" Suit Deal
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Is Ongoing in "Surrett" Suit

CAREER EDUCATION: Expects Court to Set Discovery Hearing in 2011
CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Kelley" Suit
CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: May 13 Distribution to FPU Propane Class Set
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: IBJI Drops Class Action Settlement Claim
CLEARWIRE CORP: "Minnick" Suit Remains Pending in Washington

CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Kwan" Suit in Washington
CLEARWIRE CORP: "Dennings" Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Newton" Suit in California
CLECO CORPORATION: Appeal in "Opelousas" Suit Remains Pending
DAMON ARNOLD: Refuses to Correct Gender Marker on Birth Certs.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Roling" Suit to Conclude in 2012
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Suit Discovery to End May 2012
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Oughtred" Suit
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Unit Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits

FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "OPERS" Suit
FEDERAL HOME: IPO-Related Suit vs. Underwriters Remains Pending
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Remains Dormant
FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Can Refile Suit by Month-End
FILA USA: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Athletic Apparel

GA FINANCIAL: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Goodman & Brown Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Dismissed From "Moses" Class Suit
HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
HILLENBRAND INC: Appeal in Antitrust Suit Pending in 5th Circuit

HUGHES COMMS: Reaches MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
HUGHES COMMS: Accrues $1.9MM for HughesNet Class Settlement
HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit
ITRON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violation
JENNY CRAIG: Employees File Class Action Over Underpayments

MOODY'S CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Appeal Class Certification Denial
NICOR INC: Merger-Related Class Suits Still Pending in Illinois
NICOR INC: Lock 12 Plan Sale Prompts Filing of Class Action
NICOR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Line Comfort Guard
OMEGA FLEX: Still Pursuing Class Suit Defense Costs Reimbursement

ORECK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Halo Vacuum Deceptive Claims
PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
PANERA BREAD: "Sotoudeh" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Calif.
PANERA BREAD: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Florida
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces "Ortiz" Lawsuit in Virginia

PEP BOYS: Accused of Violating Minnesota Consumer Fraud Statutes
PG&E CORP: Continues to Defend San Bruno Accident-Related Suits
PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Suit Over SmartMeter Bill Generation
PRECEDENCE EQUITY: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Plan Trustee Suit

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cruise & Mullaney Suit
REALOGY CORP: Oral Arguments in Cooper Litigation Set for May 26
SILICON IMAGE: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend TCPA-Related Suit
SONY CORP: Faces 25 Lawsuits Over User Data Breaches

SONY NETWORK: Faces 14th Suit Over Private Data Breach
STREAM GLOBAL: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Sirius XM Suit
SUPERMEDIA INC: Certification Motion in Securities Suit Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: EBC's Motion to Dismiss ERISA Claims Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: To File Another Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Suit

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Three Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York
UNITED STATES: DHHR Sued Over Child Support Enforcement Failings
UNUM GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit in Maine
USAA CASUALTY: Accused in Or. of Using Fraudulent File Reviews
VISA: Gift Card Class Action Hearing Canceled

WARREN COUNTY, NJ: Suit Over Faulty Radon Systems May Proceed
WESTERN UNION: Motion to Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Claim Pending




                             *********

ACCELRYS INC: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Accelrys, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its settlement with
plaintiffs of a consolidated lawsuit challenging a proposed merger
of its subsidiary with Symyx Technologies, Inc., according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 1, 2010, Alto Merger Sub, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, merged with and into Symyx Technologies, Inc., with
Symyx surviving as the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

Prior to the completion of the Merger, several lawsuits were filed
against Symyx, the members of the Symyx board of directors and
certain executive officers of Symyx, Accelrys and Merger Sub in
purported class action lawsuits brought by individual Symyx
stockholders challenging the Merger.  The first of such lawsuits
was a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf
of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx and its directors and
chief financial officer, as well as Accelrys and Merger Sub,
alleging, among other things, that Symyx's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection
with the proposed Merger.  Subsequent to the filing of such
lawsuit, several additional suits were filed, also in Santa Clara
County, each of which was substantially similar to the first
lawsuit.  The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single
action and on May 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated complaint.  The Complaint serves as the only
complaint in the combined litigation going forward, which is
pending in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.  The
Complaint, like the previously filed complaints, alleges, among
other things, that Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection with the Merger,
and was seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement.

On June 22, 2010, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the
defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the Consolidated
Action.  Subject to court approval and further definitive
documentation the MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs
against the defendants made in connection with the Merger and the
Merger Agreement, and provides a release and settlement by the
purported class of Symyx stockholders with prejudice of all
asserted claims against the defendants without costs to any
defendant (other than as expressly provided in the MOU), in
exchange for Symyx's agreement to provide additional supplemental
disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus issued by
Accelrys and Symyx in connection with the Merger.  Accelrys and
Symyx made the appropriate supplemental disclosures on June 23,
2010.  On January 28, 2011 the plaintiffs filed the Unopposed
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action
Settlement and supporting documents.  On February 25, 2011, the
Court signed a preliminary approval order, which granted
preliminary certification of a non-opt out class and set a
settlement hearing for May 6, 2011 to determine whether a final
order and judgment should be granted to settle this matter.  Upon
settlement, the Company will be obligated to pay any attorneys
fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs, if any.  If the
settlement is not approved or the conditions of the MOU are not
satisfied, the Company says it intends to take all appropriate
actions to defend against the allegations made in the Complaint.


ALBERTA, CANADA: Top Court Allows Nursing Home Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta
government for driving up nursing home fees has been given the
green light by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The top court ruled on May 12 that the son of a former long-term-
care resident and the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society can sue
the province on behalf of thousands of seniors in Alberta over a
sudden rise in nursing home fees in 2003.

"Our clients couldn't be happier," said lawyer Allan Garber, Esq.
"You have to remember the people we act for are elderly,
chronically disabled, and the prospect of them advancing their own
claim individually would be most unfair."

However, the ruling limits on what grounds the province can be
sued.

The lawsuit can move forward on the allegations that seniors are
paying for services that may be the government's responsibility,
and that the charges may constitute discrimination against seniors
because of their age and disabilities, said Mr. Garber.

                   Alberta Also Certified Suit

The lawsuit initiated by James Darwish questions the amount his
late mother, Johanna, was charged for living at an Edmonton
seniors' home.

Mr. Darwish claims the 40% increase in long-term-care fees in
Alberta over 18 months violated the Canada Health Act by
artificially inflating accommodation fees to subsidize the cost of
medical expenses.

The class action was certified by the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench in 2008.  The province appealed the decision, which was
later upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The lawsuit seeks more than C$100 million from the Alberta
government and the former regional health authorities on behalf of
thousands of seniors in long-term-care homes since 2003.

But Mr. Gaber is hoping the dispute will be resolved before what
will be a long and expensive legal battle.

"I'm hopeful we can sit down and solve this some way," he said.


ALBERTO-CULVER: Gets Court Nod on Unilever-Related Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware court approved in February a class settlement
negotiated by Alberto-Culver Company in purported class suits
related to a Unilever transaction, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Unilever transaction refers to the definitive agreement the
Company entered in September with Unilever N.V., Unilever PLC and
other related companies, pursuant to which Unilever will acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Alberto Culver Company common
stock in exchange for $37.50 per share in cash, without interest.
The transaction agreement was amended on November 29, 2010.  The
Unilever Transaction has been approved by the Company's
stockholders, but it is still subject to certain governmental and
regulatory approvals and other closing conditions.

In connection with the Unilever Transaction, in October and
November 2010, several purported class action complaints were
filed against Alberto Culver Company and its directors and
Unilever N.V. and other related companies:

   * In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Laborers
     Local 235 Benefit Funds v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No.
     5873; City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement
     System v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 5876; Oklahoma
     Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Leonard H.
     Lavin, et al., Case No. 5879; KBC Asset Management NV v.
     Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 5898; and Southeastern
     Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Carol Lavin Bernick,
     et al., Case No. 5905 (the Delaware Court of Chancery
     consolidated these five actions by order of the court into a
     consolidated action captioned In re Alberto-Culver Company
     Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5873-VCS (the Consolidated
     Delaware Action))

   * In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
     Department, Chancery Division: Dolores Joyce v. Leonard H.
     Lavin, et al., Case No. 10CH44626; and Inter-Local Pension
     Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference of the
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Leonard H. Lavin et
     al., Case No. 10CH5419 (the Circuit Court of Cook County,
     Illinois consolidated these two actions (the Illinois
     Actions))

   * In the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois:
     David Jaroslawicz v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 1:10-
     CV-6815; and Dolores Joyce v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al. (the
     Federal Court Actions

All nine lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
negotiation, consideration and approval of the Unilever
Transaction agreement by, among other things, agreeing to sell the
company for inadequate consideration and on otherwise
inappropriate terms.  The complaints alleged that the Unilever
defendants aided and abetted, and the complaints filed in the
Illinois Actions also alleged that the company aided and abetted,
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Alberto Culver
directors.  The complaint in the Joyce Federal Court Action also
alleged that the preliminary proxy statement contains material
misrepresentations or omissions in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Based on these allegations, the
lawsuits sought, among other things, injunctive relief, including
the enjoining of the Unilever Transaction, and damages.  They also
sought recovery of the costs of the actions, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Illinois Actions.  Before the court ruled on the defendants'
motion, it granted plaintiffs' leave to voluntarily dismiss the
Illinois Actions on November 3, 2010.

On November 29, 2010, the Alberto Culver defendants, the Unilever
defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action
and the Federal Court Actions entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, resolving all claims by
Alberto Culver shareholders (other than statutory appraisal
rights) arising in connection with the Unilever Transaction,
including all claims in the Consolidated Delaware Action and the
Federal Court Actions.  On February 21, 2011, the Delaware Court
of Chancery approved the Settlement Agreement.

Alberto Culver Company develops, manufactures, distributes and
markets beauty care brands as well as food and household brands in
the United States and more than 100 other countries.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Berman DeValerio Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action
lawsuit against American Superconductor Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of AMSC's common stock from July 29, 2010,
through and including April 5, 2011, and purchasers in AMSC's
public offering, commencing on November 12, 2010.

Berman DeValerio brought the complaint against American
Superconductor, certain of the Company's directors and officers,
and three underwriters of the November Offering in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The case
is filed under docket no. 11-cv-10849.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors wishing to serve as the Lead Plaintiff are required to
file a motion for appointment with the Court no later than June 6,
2011.

The claims arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for purchasers in the November Offering;
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission for Class Period Purchasers.

Based in Devens, Mass., American Superconductor provides wind
turbine designs and electrical control systems primarily in North
America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific Region.  During the Class
Period, the complaint alleges, the Company's revenues came largely
from a single customer: Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd., a wind-
turbine maker based in China.  Sales to Sinovel accounted for 79%
of the Company's total revenues reported for the second quarter of
2010, and 73% of total revenues reported for the third quarter of
2010, the complaint says.

Throughout the Class Period, the Company and certain individual
defendants knowingly or recklessly issued false statements about
AMSC's revenues and projected profits, the quality of the
Company's financial reporting controls and the strength of its
relationship with Sinovel, the complaint states.  Documents
included in the November Offering specifically incorporated SEC
filings that contained certain of those untrue statements,
according to the complaint.

The truth began to emerge on December 11, 2010, the complaint
states, when Barron's reported that American Superconductor was
headed for a decline because Sinovel was suffering from a glut in
inventory, as revealed in documents associated with Sinovel's
anticipated initial public offering of securities in China.
Though defendant Greg Yurek, American Superconductor's CEO, denied
to Barron's that there were any problems, the Company's stock fell
more than 9% on the news.

On April 5, 2011, American Superconductor announced after the
markets closed that it was reporting lower revenues and earnings
than it had previously forecast for the fourth quarter of its 2010
fiscal year, and lowering its guidance to analysts for its full
2010 fiscal year.

The Company blamed the lowered expectations on Sinovel, disclosing
that Sinovel had "refused to accept" delivery of certain
contracted shipments of wind turbine core electrical components
shipped to Sinovel during Q4 2010.  The Company further stated
that it believed Sinovel "intends to reduce its level of inventory
before accepting further shipments" and that AMSC planned to
"review the appropriateness of the timing of its revenue
recognition on approximately $56 million of unpaid shipments in
the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2010" to Sinovel.

As a result of the April 5, 2011 disclosure, AMSC's stock price
fell more than 41%, from $24.88 per share to a close of $14.47 per
share on April 6, 2011.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than June 6,
2011, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  You may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to
discuss your rights and interests in the case.  Please note: you
may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against
corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and
antitrust laws.  The firm has 39 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco
and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Contacts: Patrick Egan, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio
          Telephone: 800-516-9926
          E-mail: pegan@bermandevalerio.com

          Jason Leviton, Esq.
          Telephone: 800-516-9926
          E-mail: jleviton@bermandevalerio.com


AOL INC: Court Dismisses Claims in California Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A California court has dismissed claims on subject matter
jurisdiction grounds in the putative class action lawsuit filed
against AOL Inc., according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 22, 2006, Salvadore Ramkissoon and two unnamed
plaintiffs filed a putative class action against AOL, LLC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
asserting claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the California Consumer Records Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the
California Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law claims
for unjust enrichment and public disclosure of private facts. The
claims arise out of AOL's public posting of AOL member search
queries in late July 2006.

The Court dismissed the named Plaintiff (Salvadore Ramkisoon) and
all but the California False Advertising Law and California Unfair
Competition Law claims, under which the unnamed plaintiffs seek
only declaratory and injunctive relief regarding AOL's search
query retention practices, leaving no claims for monetary relief
in the case. The Court subsequently dismissed the remaining claims
on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. The parties have since
agreed in principle to a settlement under which AOL will implement
various safeguards around the retention and use of search-related
data. This settlement will not be material to the Company's
financial statements.

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.
AOL's business spans online content, products and services that
the company offers to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  AOL
is focused on attracting and engaging consumers and providing
valuable online advertising services on both AOL's owned and
operated properties and third-party websites.  In addition, AOL
operates one of the largest internet subscription access services
in the United States, which serves as a valuable distribution
channel for AOL's consumer offerings.


BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Awaits Written Final Okay of "Weyl" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation is awaiting a written order
granting final approval of its settlement of a class action
lawsuit entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 3, 2011.

On August 6, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-
00093109-CU-OE-CTL, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.  The
complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the
Company's hourly employees in California for the four years prior
to the filing of the complaint.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the Company failed to provide hourly employees
with meal and rest periods and failed to pay wages within required
time periods during employment and upon termination of employment.
The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, an award of
one hour of pay (wages) for each workday that a meal or rest
period was not provided; restitution of unpaid wages; actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; pre-judgment
interest; statutory penalties including an additional thirty days'
wages for each hourly employee in California whose employment
terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the
complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
and injunctive and declaratory relief.  On December 14, 2009, the
parties engaged in mediation and agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
February 4, 2010, the parties filed a joint settlement and a
motion to preliminarily approve the settlement with the court.  On
July 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On November 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
final approval of the settlement with the court.  On January 24,
2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement, reduced
the award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and instructed
plaintiff's counsel to prepare a written order on final approval
of the settlement. The plaintiff filed a renewed motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs, and the court has not yet
ruled on that motion. The Company previously recorded an estimated
liability of $1.4 million under the settlement, inclusive of
payments to class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses, an enhancement payment to the class representative,
claims administrator fees and payment to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, which has been included within the
Company's accrued liabilities for legal matters as of April 3,
2011.  The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with
respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.  Once the court
enters the written order granting final approval, the settlement
will constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all
claims related to the lawsuit.


BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of a settlement of a class
action lawsuit entitled Michael Kelly v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., is set for July 29, 2011, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3,
2011.

On August 13, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Michael Kelly v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. 37-2009-00095594-CU-MC-CTL, alleging violations of
the California Business and Professions Code and California Civil
Code.  The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of persons who purchased certain tennis, racquetball and
squash rackets from the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the Company employed deceptive pricing,
marketing and advertising practices with respect to the sale of
such rackets.  The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class
members, unspecified amounts of damages and/or restitution;
attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive relief to require the
Company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct.  On
July 20, 2010, the plaintiff filed with the court a Motion for
Class Certification.  The plaintiff and the Company engaged in
mediation on September 1, 2010, and again on November 22, 2010.

During mediation, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
January 27, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily
approve the settlement with the court.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company agreed that class members who submit valid
and timely claim forms will receive a refund of the purchase price
of a class racket, up to $50 per racket, in the form of either a
gift card or a check.  Additionally, the Company agreed to pay
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, an enhancement payment to
the class representative and claims administrator's fees.  Under
the proposed settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company
for the class payout, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, class
representative enhancement payment and claims administrator's fees
is less than $4.0 million, then the Company will issue merchandise
vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the
manner provided in the settlement agreement.  On March 21, 2011,
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
court has scheduled a hearing for July 29, 2011, to consider
granting final approval of the settlement.  The Company's
estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is reflected in a
legal settlement accrual recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal
2010. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect
to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.  Once final approval is
granted, the settlement will constitute a full and complete
settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit.  If
the court does not grant preliminary or final approval of the
settlement, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
If the settlement is not finally approved by the court and the
lawsuit is settled or resolved unfavorably to the Company, this
litigation, the costs of defending it and any resulting required
change in the business practices of the Company could have a
material negative impact on the Company's results of operations
and financial condition.


BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS: Motion to Consolidate 8 Class Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation's motion to consolidate eight
class action lawsuits is pending in California, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3,
2011.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
eight complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049, alleging violations
of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code;
(2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott
Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC455477, alleging violations of the California Civil Code; (3) on
February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior
Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v.
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459,
alleging violations of the California Civil Code; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300, alleging violations
of the California Civil Code; (5) on
March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court
in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v.
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228,
alleging violations of the California Civil Code, negligence,
invasion of privacy and unlawful intrusion; (6) on March 30, 2011,
a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County
of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123, alleging violations of
the California Civil Code; (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San
Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829, alleging violations
of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and
unlawful intrusion; and (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in
the California Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin,
entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK, alleging violations of
the California Civil Code.  Each plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the
Company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases.  Each
plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, some or all of
the following: statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; costs;
restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive
relief.  On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in the Matatova case and
the plaintiff in the Nelson case jointly filed with the Judicial
Council of California a Petition for Coordination.  On April 1,
2011, the Company filed with the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles a Motion to Transfer and Consolidate
Actions.  The Company intends to defend each suit vigorously.  The
Company is not able to estimate a range of potential loss in the
event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these cases at the
present time.  If any of these cases are resolved unfavorably to
the Company, such litigation, the costs of defending it and any
resulting required change in the business practices of the Company
could have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations and financial condition.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Continues in Misclassification Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., continues to engage in discovery in the
putative class action alleging managers were misclassified as
exempt from overtime and other California law requirements,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2011.

On August 25, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court on behalf
of himself and other current and former team members working as
restaurant assistant managers, kitchen managers and other managers
in California.  The complaint, as amended, alleges the Company's
California managers were misclassified as exempt from overtime and
other California law requirements and alleges causes of action for
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and
rest periods, failure to pay wages timely, penalties for unpaid
wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
keep accurate payroll records, violation of the California
Business and Professions Code, and failure to reimburse class
members for business expenses.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.  In January 2010, on the Company's motion, the Court
ordered the venue of the case transferred to Orange County.

The Company has responded to the third amended complaint, the
operative complaint, and is engaging in continuing discovery.  The
Company is vigorously defending its position in this action.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discovery Continues in Suit Over On-Call Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., continues to engage in discovery with
respect to a putative class action alleging the Company failed to
pay wages for on-call time, according to the Company's May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2011.

On February 4, 2009, a team member filed a putative class action
complaint in Fresno County, California, Superior Court on behalf
of himself and other current and former team members.  The
complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages for
on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code and for penalties for unpaid wages.  The
complaint also seeks a constructive trust, injunctive relief,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.  On August 14,
2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other team
members joined the action as plaintiffs.  The Company answered the
operative complaint denying the allegations and is engaging in
continuing discovery.  The Company says it is vigorously defending
its position in this action.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Funds Settlement in Wage-Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has funded its settlement with the
plaintiffs of a putative class action complaint filed in Orange
County, California, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2011.

On April 6, 2009, a team member filed a putative class action
complaint in Orange County, California, Superior Court on behalf
of himself and other team members.  The complaint alleged causes
of action for failure to pay the plaintiff and other putative
class members regular wages and overtime pay, failure to maintain
the designated wage scale and secret payment of lower wages, the
greater of actual damages or penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and restitution of wages and injunctive
relief for violation of the California Business and Professions
Code.  The complaint also sought interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The parties reached a settlement of this action.  The
court issued an order finally approving the settlement and entered
judgment in February 2011.  The settlement was funded in April
2011.  The Company says the terms of this settlement are not
considered to be material to its consolidated financial position.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Says Calif. Suit Settlement Terms Immaterial
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., says in its May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2011, that the terms of its settlement of a
putative class action lawsuit commenced in Los Angeles County,
California, is not material to its consolidated financial
position.

On February 5, 2004, a former team member filed a putative class
action complaint in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court
on behalf of herself and other current and former team members.
On March 16, 2004, the former team member filed an amended
complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay
reporting time minimum pay; (2) failure to allow meal breaks; (3)
failure to allow rest breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5)
civil penalties; (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit; (7)
punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and, (8) disgorgement of
illicit profits.  The complaint also sought interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.  On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to
dismiss her second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action.  In
November 2008, the parties reached a settlement of this matter
subject to final approval from the arbitrator and confirmation by
the court.  The arbitrator approved the settlement in September
2010, and signed a judgment that dismissed the arbitration in
October 2010.  The court approved the settlement and entered
judgment in December 2010.  The settlement was funded in March
2011.

The Company says the terms of this settlement are not considered
to be material to its consolidated financial position.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Continues to Defend Canadian Horsepower Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to defend itself in the
horsepower lawsuits filed in Canadian courts, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2011.

The Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions that
arise in the normal course of its business.  These actions
typically relate to product liability (including asbestos-related
liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with
customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and
employees.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with
other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines.  On December 5, 2008, the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel coordinated and transferred the
cases to Judge Adelman of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999).
On February 24, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that resolves all of the Horsepower Class Actions.  The
Settlement resolves all horsepower-labeling claims brought by all
persons or entities in the United States who, beginning January 1,
1994 through the date notice of the Settlement is first given,
purchased, for use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a
gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower provided that either
the lawn mower or the engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or
sold by a Defendant. On August 16, 2010, Judge Adelman issued a
final order approving the Settlement as well as the settlements of
all other defendants. In August and September 2010, several class
members filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Adelman's final approval
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. All of those appeals were settled as of February 16,
2011, with no additional contribution from the Company.

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all
liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and
expensive litigation. The settling defendants as a group agreed to
pay an aggregate amount of $51 million. However, the monetary
contribution of the amount of each of the settling defendants is
confidential. In addition, the Company, along with the other
settling defendants, agreed to injunctive relief regarding their
future horsepower labeling, as well as procedures that will allow
purchasers of lawnmower engines to seek a one-year extended
warranty free of charge. Under the terms of the Settlement, the
balance of settlement funds were paid, and the one-year warranty
extension program began to run, on March 1, 2011. As a result of
the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of $30.6
million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 representing the
total of the Company's monetary portion of the Settlement and the
estimated costs of extending the warranty period for one year.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010). On May 3, 2010, other
plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in
Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket
No. 500-06-000507-109). Both Canadian complaints contain
allegations and seek relief under Canadian law that are similar to
the Horsepower Class Actions. The Company is evaluating the
complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive
pleading to either one.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is a
leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden and
turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R) and
Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Appeal From Dismissal of USW Suit Due May 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed by the United Steel
Workers against Briggs & Stratton Corporation have until May 23,
2011, to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit from the order dismissing the complaint, according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27,
2011.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-
sponsored retiree medical plans.  The purpose of the amendments
was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried
retirees.  On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who
retired prior to August 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed
a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs &
Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton
Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700),
contesting the Company's right to make these changes.  In addition
to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks an
injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or
reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a
permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making
changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with
interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
April 21, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs have
until May 19, 2011, to file a motion with the district court to
reconsider the dismissal order or until May 23, 2011, to appeal
the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss,
the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is a
leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden and
turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R) and
Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Unveils Moose Collision Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a lawyer representing a class
action lawsuit against the Newfoundland and Labrador government
has released updated statistics he says are from the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary on
moose-vehicle collisions.

The statistics, given to lawyer Ches Crosbie, Q.C., through an
Access to Information request, indicate an increase in the number
of collisions in territory covered by the RCMP -- 702 collisions
last year while there were 658 in 2009.

Mr. Crosbie says when you combine statistics for both police
forces, there were 783 collisions involving moose in 2010.

However, the Mounties say the numbers have to be scrutinized more
closely before anyone reaches conclusions.

RCMP Sgt. Boyd Merrill says not all of the incidents were caused
by moose, while in some the animals did not come into contact with
a vehicle.

The class action suit is seeking a reduction in the moose
population and compensation for those injured or killed in moose
accidents.

The lawyer representing the class may be reached at:

          Chesley F. Crosbie, Q.C.
          CHES CROSBIE BARRISTERS
          169 Water Street
          St. John's, NL
          A1C 1B1
          Telephone: (709) 579-4000


CANWEST PUBLISHING: Ontario Court Okays Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2011, the Ontario court approved settlements in a
copyright class action involving freelance writers who wrote for
Canadian publications.  The settlement funds total C$7.9 million.

The case involved allegations that the defendants infringed the
copyright of freelance writers who wrote articles and other
literary works that were published by Toronto Star Newspapers
Ltd., Rogers Publishing Limited, Canwest Publishing Inc., or their
affiliates.  The plaintiff alleged the defendants disseminated
these literary works in online databases without permission.

"This is a tremendous result for Canadian freelance writers", said
Kirk Baert, Esq., lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.  "Class members
saw their articles appearing in online databases without their
express permission.  This settlement provides compensation for
that unexpected use."

In the next few weeks, there will be an official notice appearing
in certain newspapers and magazines explaining how freelance
writers can make claims from the settlement funds.  The notice
will also be available on Koskie Minsky's Web site:
http://www.kmlaw.ca/freelanceclassaction

The freelance writers are represented by Heather Robertson, a
freelance author, and by Koskie Minsky LLP, a leading Canadian
class action law firm.


CAREER EDUCATION: Sept. 30 Discovery Deadline Set in "Rojas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
established a deadline of September 30, 2011, for the parties in
the putative class action lawsuit filed by Sergio Rojas to
conclude all fact discovery, according to the Company's May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Fahey, et al v. Career Education Corporation was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey alleging
that she had received an unauthorized text message advertisement
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  On
September 3, 2010, CEC removed this case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On November 22,
2010, CEC filed a motion to dismiss the Fahey case.  That motion
is still pending.  Judge James B. Zagel has stayed any further
activity on the Fahey case until resolution of an appeal in the
Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues similar to those raised
in the Motion to Dismiss.  On August 18, 2010, the same counsel
representing plaintiffs in the Fahey action filed a similar
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of Sergio Rojas alleging similar violations of
the TCPA.  Rojas, like Fahey, seeks class certification of his
claims.  The alleged classes are defined to include persons who
received unauthorized text message advertisements from CEC.  Rojas
and Fahey each seek an award trebling the statutory damages to the
class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Judge Virginia M. Kendall has established a deadline of
September 30, 2011, for the parties to conclude all fact discovery
in the Rojas case.  All other matters in the case, including
additional briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
will be addressed following the conclusion of fact discovery.
Judge Kendall has denied Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate the
Rojas and Fahey cases.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the
appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class
members who might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stays Proceedings in "Lilley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
All state court proceedings in the class action lawsuit captioned
Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., are stayed
while Career Education Corporation appeals the order certifying
the class, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint styled Lilley, et
al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2010.  The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois.  The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in
that program since July 1, 2003.  The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair
conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims
of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information.  Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010.  On October 27, 2010 the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims.  The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville,
Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the
period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010.  This class
consists of approximately 2,300 members.  Defendants filed a
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification
order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  On February 10,
2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants'
petition for leave to appeal.  While that appeal is pending, all
proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the
appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class
members who might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Disburses $40 Million Under "Amador" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disbursed $40 million during the
first quarter of 2011, as required by the terms of the agreement
to settle the lawsuit Amador, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy filed a
complaint -- Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation -- in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco.  Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a
putative class action and allege four causes of action: fraud;
constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action -- Adams, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation -- on
behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the
Amador putative class.  The Adams action also is styled as a class
action and is based on the same allegations underlying the Amador
action and attempts to plead the same four causes of action pled
in the Amador action.  The Adams action has been deemed related to
the Amador action and is being handled by the same judge.  The
Adams action has been stayed.

Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on or about March 19,
2010, alleging the same causes of action, but included a new claim
based on violations of the California Education Code, which was
recently reinstated by the California legislature.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this new claim.  The motion was taken
under submission by the Court and has not been ruled on.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material
terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement
as of November 1, 2010.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.  The monetary component of the settlement involves
payment by the Company of approximately $40.8 million to pay
claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from
CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008.  The payment
includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be
incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement.
During 2010, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $40.8 million
which represents the Company's best estimate of the loss related
to this matter.  The settlement has been preliminarily approved by
the court and the parties are in the process of implementing the
settlement terms.  The Company says that it disbursed $40.0
million during the current quarter, as required by the terms of
the agreement.


CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Is Ongoing in "Surrett" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is currently engaged in merits
discovery in connection with the class action lawsuit captioned
Surrett, et al., v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career
Education Corporation, according to the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10,
2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach
of contract.  Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute,
Ltd. made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment
prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an
education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect
to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation.
WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims
under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12,
2008.  Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff
and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been
dismissed.  Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and when Ms.
Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole named
plaintiff.  The parties completed written discovery on class
issues.  On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order
granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud
claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of
the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims.  The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.  The class consists of approximately
2,600 members.

Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she
enrolled before March 5, 2006), Plaintiff's counsel recently
substituted in a new class representative for her named Nathan
Surrett -- Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and
Career Education Corporation -- pursuant to a stipulation among
the parties which provided, among other things, that WCI retains
the right to challenge whether the new class representative is
adequate (with Plaintiff retaining the burden of proof on that
issue).  Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7,
2010, which included individual and class allegations by Mr.
Surrett.  Class notice is expected to be sent out shortly.  The
parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the
appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class
members who might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Expects Court to Set Discovery Hearing in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is expecting the Los Angeles County
Superior Court to set a hearing on class discovery during the
second or third quarter of 2011 with respect to the class action
lawsuit commenced by Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon, according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation.  The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.  The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period.  The alleged class is defined as including "all persons
who purchased educational services from California School of
Culinary Arts, Inc., or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of
action (including, without limitation, the period following the
filing of the action)."  Defendants successfully demurred to the
constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.
Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based
on alleged violations of California's former Educational Reform
Act.

The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, in which they
assert the same claims against the Company, but have added claims
against approximately 15 student lenders.  The plaintiffs allege
the student lenders are contractually liable for damages incurred
as a result of conduct by the Company by virtue of certain "holder
clauses" included in their loan documents.

On or about April 19, 2011, the same attorneys representing the
plaintiffs in the Vasquez action filed a separate complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging essentially the same
claims against the Company and the lenders on behalf of
approximately 300 individual students.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of
tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.  The Company has not responded to the new complaint and
the court has ordered that it be stayed pending a decision in
Vasquez on a motion for class certification.

The parties are engaged in class discovery and the Court is
expected to set a hearing on class discovery during the second or
third quarter of 2011.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the
appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class
members who might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Kelley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the lawsuit filed by Edward J. Kelly, Jon Pizzica, and
Christopher Steinbrunn and a related Pennsylvania state court
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On or about December 20, 2010, Edward J. Kelly, Jon Pizzica, and
Christopher Steinbrunn filed a collective action complaint --
Kelly, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. -- in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against Career Education Corporation alleging that
CEC had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
Plaintiffs for all of the hours that they worked, including
overtime hours.  Plaintiffs formerly worked as Admissions
Representatives at Le Cordon Bleu Institute of Culinary Arts, Inc.
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("LCB-Pittsburgh").  The Kelly lawsuit
is brought on behalf of all current and former Admissions
Representatives at all of CEC's culinary arts strategic business
units for the period commencing three years prior to the filing of
the collective action complaint to the present.  In their
collective action complaint, Plaintiffs in the Kelly lawsuit seek
unspecified back overtime pay, attorneys' fees and costs, and
liquidated and/or compensatory damages.  On March 8, 2011, the
Court granted conditional collective action certification in the
Kelly lawsuit as to Admissions Representatives who worked at LCB-
Pittsburgh only.  Notice of the Kelly lawsuit has not been
disseminated to the class.  As of April 20, 2011, 11 other former
Admissions Representatives who worked at LCB-Pittsburgh joined the
litigation by filing consent to join forms with the Court.

On April 19, 2011, CEC, without admitting any liability, reached
an agreement in principle to settle both the Kelly lawsuit and a
related Pennsylvania state court lawsuit.  The settlement will
require the consolidation of the lawsuits and approval by the
Court.  The settlement will resolve the consolidated lawsuit on a
collective action and class action basis.  As a result of the
settlement, and following the execution thereof, both the Kelly
and the related state court lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice.  The Company estimates the loss related to this matter
at $0.2 million.


CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: May 13 Distribution to FPU Propane Class Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution to members of a class in the class action lawsuit
filed by a customer of a subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation will be made on May 13, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In May 2010, a Florida Public Utilities Company propane customer
filed a class action complaint against FPU in Palm Beach County,
Florida, alleging, among other things, that FPU acted in a
deceptive and unfair manner related to a particular charge by FPU
on its bills to propane customers and the description of such
charge. The suit sought to certify a class comprised of FPU
propane customers to whom such charge was assessed since May 2006
and requested damages and statutory remedies based on the amounts
paid by FPU customers for such charge. FPU vigorously denies any
wrongdoing and maintains that the particular charge at issue is
customary, proper and fair. Without any admission by FPU of any
wrongdoing, validity of the claims or a properly certifiable class
for the complaint, FPU entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiff in September 2010 to avoid the burden and expenses
of continued litigation. The court approved the final settlement,
and the judgment became final on March 13, 2011. In 2010, the
Company recorded $1.2 million of the total estimated costs related
to this litigation. Pursuant to the final settlement, the
distribution to the class must be made by May 13, 2011.

Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
distributes, transmits, and markets natural gas.  The Company was
founded in 1859 and is headquartered in Dover, Del.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: IBJI Drops Class Action Settlement Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a class member that had asked for payment on a settlement
claim worth more than $500,000 in a Preferred Provider
Organization (PPO) class action brought against Cincinnati
Insurance Company and Cincinnati Casualty Company has dropped its
request.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge approved the withdrawal
of the claim that had been pursued by the Illinois Bone and Joint
Institute (IBJI) May 6, and closed the 2005 case.

The claimant's reason for dropping the matter is not given in its
withdrawal request.

The IBJI was one of a class of Illinois healthcare providers led
by chiropractor Frank Bemis.

Mr. Bemis and the class claimed in their suit that Cincinnati took
PPO discounts it wasn't entitled to from workers' compensation
treatment claims.

The suit is one of a number of PPO class actions filed in the
early part of the last decade in both Madison and St. Clair
Counties.

The class consisted of 32,000 members.

The suits were filed by the then-legal partnership of the Lakin
Law Firm of Wood River and the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss.

That partnership broke up in 2007.

The Lakin firm's successor, LakinChapman LLC of Wood River
remained as class counsel on the Cincinnati suit.

The parties settled for $3.5 million in 2009.

Mr. Bemis took home $5,000 while the class counsel from
LakinChapman got $700,000 in fees.

The IBJI's initial claim was partially paid.

Cincinnati paid the institute $52,000 of a $485,000 claim.

The defendants rejected the bulk of the claim on grounds that the
class member failed to submit the right documentation of the
alleged wrongful deductions.

The IBJI then went on to find what it claimed were further
wrongful claims deductions which brought its total settlement
claim to more than $500,000.

Cincinnati rejected that claim last year.

The IBJI then moved for a court resolution of the dispute.

Judge Mudge heard arguments in December 2010 and March of this
year on the matter and reviewed the documentation that the IBJI
argued would support its claims.

Cincinnati took issue with the form of the documentation and the
math included in spreadsheets the IBJI submitted to Judge Mudge
for review.

Cincinnati attorney Omar Odland, Esq., noted March 24 in a hearing
on the matter before Judge Mudge that one patient who appeared
over 50 times in the records had claims that weren't related to
workers' compensation injuries.

Class counsel, Robert Schmieder II, Esq., countered at the same
hearing that the IBJI had supported its claims with hard numbers.

"It may be cumbersome and they may not like it but they have the
data," Mr. Schmieder II said at the March 24 hearing.

Judge Mudge gave the parties an additional 60 days following the
March hearing to conduct any needed discovery on the issue.

The IBJI withdrew its claim May 6, the same day that Judge Mudge
approved the withdrawal and closed the case.

The suit had previously been assigned to Madison County Circuit
Judge Barbara Crowder.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


CLEARWIRE CORP: "Minnick" Suit Remains Pending in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by a group of five plaintiffs from
Hawaii, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington against Clearwire
Corporation's subsidiary remains pending in a Washington court,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County,
Washington by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota,
North Carolina and Washington (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee, which the Company refers to as
ETF; and invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service
to the detriment of subscribers.  Among other things, the lawsuit
seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a
class-wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the
Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from
collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any
early termination fees paid by the Company's subscribers;
equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees. On May 27, 2009, an amended complaint was filed
and served, adding seven additional plaintiffs, including
individuals from New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. On June 2,
2009, plaintiffs served the amended complaint. The Company removed
the action to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court stayed
discovery pending its ruling on the motion. The Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety on February 2, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
took place on November 3, 2010. On March 29, 2011 the Court of
Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court
of Washington requesting guidance on a question of Washington
state law. The parties will brief the issue in May and June 2011.
Once the Washington Supreme Court issues its opinion, the Court of
Appeals will continue considering the appeal of the District
Court's dismissal of all claims in the First Amended Complaint. On
March 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed with the District Court a Motion
for an Indicative Ruling on Whether Court Would Grant Leave for
Filing of Second Amended Complaint, which the Company refers to as
the Motion for Indicative Ruling, attaching a proposed Second
Amended Complaint seeking to add new claims concerning Clearwire's
customer pre-qualification tool. The Motion was fully briefed as
of April 22, 2011. This case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss
cannot be made at this time.

Kirkland, Wash.-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of wireless broadband
services.  Clearwire's 4G mobile broadband network serves 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Kwan" Suit in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by a representative plaintiff Rosa
Kwan against Clearwire Corporation is in the early stages of
litigation, according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On September 1, 2009, the Company was served with a purported
class action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, brought
by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan. The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief
and actual and statutory damages under federal and state law. On
October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  On
October 22, 2009, the Court issued a stipulated order granting
plaintiff until October 29, 2009, to file an Amended Complaint.
The parties further stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss that was fully briefed on
January 15, 2010.  On February 22, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims
with prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to further amend the
complaint.  Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding
additional state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a
purported collection agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27,
2011, the court granted the parties' stipulation allowing
plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding two new class
representatives.  In response to the Fourth Amended Complaint, on
March 3, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel
the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims or
alternatively, (2) to stay this case pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No.
09-893.  On March 29, 2011, the Court granted the parties'
stipulation to stay the litigation in its entirety pending
resolution of Concepcion and vacated all pretrial and other
deadlines including the briefing schedule for class certification.
On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Concepcion, and
as a result, the Company expects the parties to renew the motions
to compel arbitration. This case is in the early stages of
litigation, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential loss cannot be made at this time.

Kirkland, Wash.-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of wireless broadband
services.  Clearwire's 4G mobile broadband network serves 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: "Dennings" Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by a representative plaintiff Angelo
Dennings against Clearwire Corporation is in the early stages of
litigation, according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On November 15, 2010, a purported class action was filed by Angelo
Dennings against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington. The complaint generally alleges
the Company slows network speeds when network demand is highest
and that such network management violates the Company's agreements
with subscribers and is contrary to the company's advertising and
marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not
review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when
subscribers cancel service due to network management, the Company
charges an ETF or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable
under the circumstances.  The claims asserted include violations
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified damages and
restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's ETF and
restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged circumstances;
an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged
deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 13, 2011, Clearwire filed
concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the alternative,
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.  In response to Clearwire's motions,
Plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its complaint on
March 3, 2011, adding fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight
separate jurisdictions.  Plaintiff further added new claims of
violation of Consumer Protection statutes under state laws. On
March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel
the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims,
or alternatively, (2) to stay this case pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No.
09-893, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs did not oppose
Clearwire's motion to stay the litigation pending Concepcion, and
the parties stipulated to stay the litigation. On April 27, 2011,
the U.S. Supreme Court decided Concepcion, and as a result, the
Company expects the parties to renew the motions to compel
arbitration. This case is in the early stages of litigation, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be
made at this time.

Kirkland, Wash.-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of wireless broadband
services.  Clearwire's 4G mobile broadband network serves 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Newton" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Newton v. Clearwire,
Inc., remains pending in California, according to Clearwire
Corporation's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 30, 2011, Clearwire was served with a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic] alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified
restitution and disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire service;
and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.  The court
stayed the action pending the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (Case No. 08-56394).  On April 27,
2011, the Court decided Concepcion, triggering the parties'
obligation to file a status report with the Newton court by
May 12, 2011.  This case is in the early stages of litigation, its
outcome is unknown and any estimate of any potential loss cannot
be made at this time.

Kirkland, Wash.-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of wireless broadband
services.  Clearwire's 4G mobile broadband network serves 68
markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas,
Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and
Boston.


CLECO CORPORATION: Appeal in "Opelousas" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit filed by customers in
Opelousas, Louisiana against Cleco Corporation remains pending in
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by
applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco
Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs
allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco Power currently operates in
Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the
City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement
dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own
electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities
owned by the City of Opelousas.  In April 2010, Cleco Power filed
a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring
that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the
rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and
that no overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power
removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April
2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of
the Class Action Fairness Act.  On May 11, 2010, a second class
action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of
St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations
of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of a number
of Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power has responded in the same
manner as with the first class action lawsuit.  On September 29,
2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in
which they were originally filed for further proceedings.  On
January 21, 2011, the presiding judge in the state court
proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  On February 7, 2011, the
administrative law judge in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the
commission has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the
class action plaintiffs.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed
this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of
Louisiana, and await a decision by such court.  Management
believes that these lawsuits will not have a material adverse
effect on the Registrants' financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy
company headquartered in Pineville, La.  It operates a regulated
electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about
277,000 retail customers across Louisiana.  Cleco also operates a
wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which
includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.


DAMON ARNOLD: Refuses to Correct Gender Marker on Birth Certs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Grey, Victor Williams, and Nicholas Guarino, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Damon T. Arnold, M.D.,
Case No. 2011-CH-17091 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 10, 2011),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the
Vital Records Act, 410 ILCS Sections 535/1-29, and in the
alternative, for violations of Article I, Section 2 (the right to
due process) and Article I, Sections 6 and 12 (the right to
privacy) of the Illinois Constitution.

Specifically, the plaintiffs charge the defendant with refusing to
change their genders on their birth certificates in the absence of
genital surgery, in violation of the Vital Records Act.

Plaintiffs are transsexual individuals who have undergone medical
treatment, including surgeries, to conform their bodies to their
"internal sense of gender."

Defendant Damon T. Arnold, M.D., is the State Registrar of Vital
Records and the Director of the Illinois Department of Public
Health, and he is responsible for administering the Vital Records
Act.  According to the plaintiffs, the Act explicitly allows the
changing of the gender marker on birth certificates provided that
a licensed medical doctor attests that because of the surgery he
or she has performed on an individual, the gender on the birth
certificate should be changed.

According to the Complaint, for many years, in carrying out his
duties under the Act, defendant routinely changed the gender
marker on Illinois birth certificates to accurately reflect the
person's gender identity for individuals born in Illinois who had
undergone a form of gender confirmation surgery that did not
include genital surgery.  In 2005, however, defendant adopted a
practice of refusing to correct the sex designation on an Illinois
birth certificate to match a person's gender identity unless the
person had undergone genital surgery.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Knight, Esq.
          Harvey Grossman, Esq.
          ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC.
          180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300
          Chicago, Ill 60601
          Telephone: (312) 201-9740

               - and -

          David M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Margaret J. Simpson, Esq.
          Kyle A. Plazzolo, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          E-mail: dkroeger@jenner.com
                  msimpson@jenner.com
                  kpalazzolo@jenner.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Roling" Suit to Conclude in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to conclude in 2012 with respect to the class
action lawsuit filed against E*TRADE Financial Corporation by
Joseph Roling alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
violation of California Civil Code, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.  Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the class
action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees and
expenses and injunctive relief.  The Company moved to transfer
venue on the case to the Southern District of New York; that
motion was denied.  The Court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss
in part and denied the motion to dismiss in part.  The Court
bifurcated discovery to permit initial discovery on individual
claims and class certification.  Discovery on the merits will not
commence until a class could be certified; the Court has set a
date in 2012 for conclusion of discovery.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims raised in
this action.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Suit Discovery to End May 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fact and expert discoveries are expected to conclude on May 15,
2012, in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against
E*TRADE Financial Corporation alleging it released false and
misleading statements, according to the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, by Larry
Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated.  On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this
action with four other purported class actions, all of which were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and which were based on the same facts and
circumstances.  On January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their
consolidated amended class action complaint in which they also
named Dennis Webb, the Company's former Capital Markets Division
President, as a defendant.  Plaintiffs contend, among other
things, that the value of the Company's stock between April 19,
2006 and November 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in
delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home
equity portfolios; materially overvalued its securities portfolio,
which included assets backed by mortgages; and based on the
foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements
made about the Company's earnings and prospects.  Plaintiffs seek
to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  Defendants filed their
motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss was completed on August 31, 2009.  On May 11,
2010, the Court issued an order denying defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 25,
2010.  Fact discovery and expert discovery are expected to
conclude on May 15, 2012.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Oughtred" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a class action complaint against E*TRADE Financial
Corporation alleging violations of the federal securities laws
appealed the recent dismissal of the lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company.  Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the Company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between
April 2, 2003, and February 13, 2008, by allegedly misrepresenting
that these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for
short term investing.  On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed
their first amended class action complaint.  Defendants filed
their pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on
February 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss
was completed on April 15, 2009.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, or, in the
alternative, rescission of auction rate securities purchases, plus
interest and attorney's fees and costs.  On March 18, 2010, the
District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  On
April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs amended their complaint.  The Company
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  By an Order dated
March 31, 2011, the Court granted E*TRADE's motion and dismissed
the action with prejudice. On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits related to the Company's merger
agreement with CDRT Acquisition Corporation and CDRT Merger Sub,
Inc., according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

Eleven purported shareholder class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of February 13, 2011, among EMSC, CDRT Acquisition
Corporation and CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., have been filed in state
court in Delaware and federal and state courts in Colorado against
various combinations of EMSC, the members of the Company's board
of directors, and other parties.  Seven actions were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery beginning on February 22, 2011, which
have since been consolidated into one action entitled In re
Emergency Medical Services Corporation Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.  On
April 4, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed their consolidated
class action complaint.  Two actions, entitled Scott A. Halliday
v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No.
2011CV316 (filed on February 15, 2011), and Alma C. Howell v.
William Sanger, et. al., Case No. 2011CV488 (filed on March 1,
2011), were filed in the District Court, Arapahoe County,
Colorado.  Two other actions, entitled Michael Wooten v. Emergency
Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-CV-00412 (filed
on February 17, 2011), and Neal Greenberg v. Emergency Medical
Services Corporation, et. al., Case No. 11-CV-00496 (filed on
February 28, 2011), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  These actions generally allege that the
directors of EMSC, Onex Corporation and/or Onex Corporation's
subsidiaries breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things: approving the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, which allegedly were financially unfair to EMSC and its
public stockholders; agreeing to provisions in the Merger
Agreement that will allegedly prevent the board from considering
other offers; permitting the unitholders agreement (which secures
the majority votes in favor of the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement) and failing to require a provision in the Merger
Agreement requiring that a majority of the public stockholders
approve the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement;
and/or making allegedly materially inadequate disclosures.  These
actions further allege that certain defendants aided and abetted
these breaches.  In addition, the two actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado contain individual
claims brought under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, pertaining to the
purported dissemination of allegedly misleading proxy materials.
These actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
including an injunction halting the Merger or rescission of the
Merger, as applicable. The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware
action have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.  The
Company believes that all of the allegations in these actions are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend these matters.  If
any one of the plaintiffs is successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the Merger on the agreed-upon terms,
then such injunction may prevent the Merger from becoming
effective, or from becoming effective within the expected
timeframe.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Unit Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation's subsidiary continues to
defend itself against class action lawsuits alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against American Medical Response, Inc., and certain
subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage
and hour laws.  On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of
Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; on
January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and on
March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  The Banta and
Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the Bartoni case in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda.
At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases.  Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities
failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation
for missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the
classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for
violations of wage hour laws.  The Company is unable at this time
to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.


FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "OPERS" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al., according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al.  This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making "false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business, risk management and the procedures the Company
put into place to protect the company from problems in the
mortgage industry."  On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed OPERS
as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.  On
September 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain
allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene
McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only
Patricia Cook.  The second amended complaint also extends the
damages period, but not the class period.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.  On November 19,
2008, the Court granted the Federal Housing Finance Agency' motion
to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On April 6, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which motion remains pending.

At present, the Company says it is not possible to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.


FEDERAL HOME: IPO-Related Suit vs. Underwriters Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit against Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation's underwriters with respect to the Company's
November 29, 2007 public offering remains pending, according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the Company's November 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar v. Syron, et al.  On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009.  The consolidated complaint alleges that three former
Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's
auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false
and misleading statements in connection with an offering by
Freddie Mac of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on
November 29, 2007.  The complaint further alleges that certain
defendants and others made additional false statements following
the offering.  The complaint names as defendants Richard Syron,
Anthony Piszel, Patricia Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan
Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities
LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on September 30, 2009.  On January 14, 2010, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
action with leave to file an amended complaint on or before
March 15, 2010.  On March 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint against these same defendants.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2010.  On July 29, 2010, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and allowed the
plaintiffs leave to replead.  On August 16, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed their second amended consolidated complaint against these
same defendants.  The defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint on September 16, 2010.  On
October 22, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, again allowing the plaintiffs leave to
replead.  On November 14, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
Richard Syron and Anthony Piszel, omitting Patricia Cook and the
underwriter defendants.

On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the remaining defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect to
Richard Syron and Anthony Piszel.  Freddie Mac is not named as a
defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters
previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek
full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement
in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of
their legal counsel.  At present, the Company says it is not
possible to predict the probable outcome of the lawsuit or any
potential impact on its business, financial condition or results
of operations.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Remains Dormant
-------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation officers and others styled Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and
FTN Financial Markets.  The complaint, as amended on December 17,
2008, contends that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in connection with Freddie Mac's September
2007 offering of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-
rate preferred stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated
Freddie Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie
Mac's exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting
standards and risk management procedures."  The complaint further
alleges that Richard Syron, Patricia Cook, and Anthony Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.  Freddie Mac
is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters
previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek
full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement
in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of
their legal counsel.  The case is currently dormant and the
Company believes plaintiff may have abandoned it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Can Refile Suit by Month-End
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave
plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook, until the end
of May to file a new complaint after the Court dismissed all of
their claims, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Another putative class action lawsuit captioned Kuriakose vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook was filed against Freddie Mac
and certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007
through August 5, 2008.  The plaintiff claims that defendants made
false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that
artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and
seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On
February 6, 2009, the Court granted the Federal Housing Finance
Agency's motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On
May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from November 30, 2007 through September 7, 2008.  Freddie
Mac filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 24, 2010.
On March 30, 2011, the Court granted without prejudice Freddie
Mac's motion to dismiss all claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the
option to file a new complaint within 60 days.

At present, the Company says it is not possible to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.


FILA USA: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Athletic Apparel
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fila is the latest in a
string of athletic apparel companies to face a class action
claiming it pushes its goods with bogus claims, in this case, that
they can "'sculpt [and] tone' the body, causing a' 50 percent
increase in muscle workouts' while walking, running, or just doing
errands and provide '41 percent more support' than traditional
workout clothing."

A copy of the Complaint in Castaneda v. Fila USA, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/12/TellTheJudge.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: jpollack@milberg.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Anthony E. Lacroix, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033


GA FINANCIAL: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
---------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rivera, individually and on behalf of the others similarly
situated v. GA Financial Trust 2002-A, et al., Case No. 2011-CH-
16946 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 9, 2011), accuses the
defendants of taking legal actions on behalf of unlicensed debt
buyers, in violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

GA Financial Trust 2002-A which claims to acquire defaulted debts
originally owed to others, became regulated by the ICAA since
January 1, 2008, but did not obtain a license at any time.

Plaintiff Rivera is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.  GA
Financial Trust, a statutory trust organized under Delaware law,
is or was engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to
purchase charged-off consumer debt and enforcing the debts against
the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.

On September 17, 2007, GA Financial Trust filed a lawsuit against
plaintiff Rivera in the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 2007 M1
192295), to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family,
or household purpose.  On January 6, 2009, GA Financial Trust
obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Goodman & Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

In December 2009, one of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s non-insurance
subsidiaries, one of the subsidiary's officers and Genworth
Financial, Inc., were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial
Wealth Management, Inc., et al., in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  In response to the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the
Court granted on March 30, 2011, the motion to dismiss the state
law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the
remaining federal claims.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend this action.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Dismissed From "Moses" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., and one of its mortgage insurance
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in November 2010 captioned Archie Moses and Violet M. Moses v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.  On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice as to Genworth
Financial, Inc., and its mortgage insurance subsidiary, according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.


HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation continues to defend itself in a consolidated
securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. (now known as Aviat Networks, Inc.)
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
including certain current Harris officers, were named as
defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on
September 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities
from January 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares
of HSTX as part of the combination between Stratex and the
Company's former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX.
Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on October 6, 2008, and October 30,
2008. The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded
complaint filed on July 29, 2009, that, among other things, added
Harris Corporation as a defendant.  This action relates to public
disclosures made by HSTX on January 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008,
which included the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for
the first three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters
ended March 28, 2008, December 28, 2007 and September 28, 2007)
and for its fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and
July 1, 2005 due to accounting errors.  The consolidated complaint
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and
sought, among other relief, determinations that the action is a
proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that
the defendants have meritorious defenses to these actions and the
defendants intend to defend the litigation vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 1, 2011.

Harris Corp. -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications, government
communications and broadcast communications.  The company is
organized in three segments: RF Communications segment, Government
Communications Systems segment and Broadcast Communications
segment.


HILLENBRAND INC: Appeal in Antitrust Suit Pending in 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the antitrust class action lawsuit
against Hillenbrand, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to the Company's May 4,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. 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 parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and three national funeral home businesses.  A similar
purported antitrust class action lawsuit was later filed by
Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called "independent
casket distributors" on behalf of casket sellers who were
unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home.  Class certification
hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer Valley Action were held
before a Magistrate Judge in early December 2006.  On November 24,
2008, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification in both cases be denied.  On
March 26, 2009, the District Judge adopted the memoranda and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied class
certification in both cases.  On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in
the FCA case filed a petition with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file an appeal of the
Court's order denying class certification.  On June 19, 2009, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs'
petition.  On July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed a request for
reconsideration of the denial of their petition.  On July 29,
2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and their alternative
motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en banc (by all
the judges sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals).

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's
order denying class certification and, on April 29, 2009, pursuant
to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court dismissed
the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice (i.e., Pioneer Valley
cannot appeal or otherwise reinstitute the case).  Neither the
Company nor Hill-Rom provided any payment or consideration for the
plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than agreeing to bear their
own costs rather than pursuing plaintiffs for costs.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class, trebling of any such damages that
may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a
report indicating that they were 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 approximately one million casket purchases
by the purported class members.

Despite the ruling denying class certification, the FCA plaintiffs
continued to pursue their individual injunctive and damages
claims.  Their individual damages claims are limited to the
alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs' individual casket purchases
(the complaint currently alleges a total of eight casket purchases
by the individual plaintiffs), which would be trebled, plus
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2010, co-defendant Stewart Enterprises, Inc. announced a
settlement with the plaintiffs.  Shortly thereafter, the remaining
defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  On September 24, 2010, the District Court granted
the motion and ordered full dismissal of the lawsuit, concluding
that "plaintiffs shall take nothing by their suit."

Plaintiffs have appealed both the Court's final judgment of
dismissal entered on September 24, 2010, and the Court's order
denying class certification entered on March 26, 2009 to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On February 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief
with the Fifth Circuit.  The defendants' opposition brief was
filed with the Court of Appeals on April 27, 2011.  Plaintiffs
will then have an opportunity to file a reply brief.  Once all
briefs are submitted, the Court of Appeals may hear oral argument
by the parties' attorneys and will then issue its ruling as to
whether or not the District Court's decisions should be reversed
or affirmed.  It should be noted, however, that the above
appellate schedule is only approximate and is subject to change
dependent upon a number of factors, including the granting of any
extensions of time and the relative congestion of the docket of
the Court of Appeals.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material
adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition,
and cash flow.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA Action, the
plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of
the co-defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights
against each other.  The Company and Hill-Rom have entered into a
judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any
potential liabilities associated with this litigation between the
Company and Hill-Rom.

Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-standing policy
of selling Batesville caskets only to licensed funeral directors
operating licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to
believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial, the
plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for the
period between the time they served their expert reports and the
time of trial.  At this point, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of any additional alleged damage claims they may make.  The
defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the
plaintiffs' damages theories.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company had incurred approximately $28.1
million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the
FCA matter since its inception.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.HillenbrandInc.com-- is the
holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the
North American death care industry through the sale of funeral
services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets,
containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other
personalization and memorialization products.


HUGHES COMMS: Reaches MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., disclosed in its May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011, that it recently negotiated a
settlement that would resolve the class suits commenced in
relation to the Company's merger transaction with EchoStar
Corporation.

Some or all of the Company, its directors, EchoStar Corporation,
EchoStar Satellite Services, L.L.C., Broadband Acquisition
Corporation ("Merger Sub"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC
have been named as defendants in five shareholder class action
lawsuits in connection with the proposed transaction in which
EchoStar will acquire all of the outstanding equity of the
Company.  On February 18, 2011, the Gottlieb Family Foundation
filed its class action complaint in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland.  On February 23, 2011, Plymouth
County Retirement System filed its shareholder class action
complaint, which has since been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On
February 24, 2011, Edward Ostensoe filed his shareholder class
action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland.  On February 28, 2011, Nina J. Shah Rohrbasser Irr.
Trust filed its shareholder class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On March 8, 2011, entities
affiliated with ALJ Capital Management, LLC, filed their
shareholder class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  Each complaint alleges, among other things,
that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties
in agreeing to the transaction and that some or all of the
Company, EchoStar, EchoStar LLC, Merger Sub and AGM aided and
abetted such breaches by the directors of the Company.  In each
case, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proposed transaction
and/or damages, costs, and attorney fees.

On April 28, 2011, the Company, its directors, and AGM entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Maryland actions that contains the essential terms of a settlement
agreed to in principle between the parties.  The Settlement
remains subject to the approval of the court or courts, and
contemplates the dismissal with prejudice of all four actions.

The Company believes that the allegations in all of these
complaints are not meritorious and if necessary, will vigorously
contest these actions.

Hughes Communications, Inc., primarily operates through its wholly
owned subsidiary, Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is a
telecommunications company that provides equipment and services to
the broadband communications marketplace.  It has extensive
technical expertise in satellite, wireline and wireless
communications which it utilizes in a number of product and
service offerings.


HUGHES COMMS: Accrues $1.9MM for HughesNet Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., has accrued $1.9 million in 2010 for
a settlement deal that would resolve a consolidated California
class suit related to "HughesNet" service, the Company disclosed
in its May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 18, 2009, the Company and Hughes Network Systems Inc.
received notice of a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by two California
subscribers to the HughesNet service.  The plaintiffs complain
about the speed of the HughesNet service, the Fair Access Policy,
early termination fees and certain terms and conditions of the
HughesNet subscriber agreement.  The plaintiffs seek to pursue
their claims as a class action on behalf of other California
subscribers.  On June 4, 2009, the Company and HNS received notice
of a similar complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in
the Superior Court of San Diego County, California.  The plaintiff
in this case also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on
behalf of other California subscribers.  Both cases have been
consolidated into a single case in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In January 2011, the Company agreed to settle this consolidated
case on a nationwide basis, subject to court approval.  As a
result, the Company accrued $1.9 million for estimated settlement
costs, plaintiffs' attorney fees and other related expenses as of
December 31, 2010.  In the event that the settlement is not
effectuated, the Company would revert to its previous position of
vigorously defending these matters as it believes that the
allegations in these complaints are not meritorious.

Hughes Communications, Inc., primarily operates through its wholly
owned subsidiary, Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is a
telecommunications company that provides equipment and services to
the broadband communications marketplace.  It has extensive
technical expertise in satellite, wireline and wireless
communications which it utilizes in a number of product and
service offerings.


HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Illinois Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Network Systems, LLC, continues to await an Illinois court
ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action challenging
its early termination fees, the Company disclosed in its May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 18, 2009, the Company and Hughes Communications, Inc.,
received notice of a complaint filed in the Cook County, Illinois,
Circuit Court by a former subscriber to the HughesNet service.
The complaint seeks a declaration allowing the former subscriber
to file a class arbitration challenging early termination fees
under the subscriber agreement.  HCI was dismissed from this case
in September 2010, while HNS remains a defendant.  HNS's motion to
dismiss, filed in September 2010, is pending, and HNS will
continue to vigorously defend the case.

Hughes Network Systems, LLC, is a telecommunications company that
provides equipment and services to the broadband communications
marketplace.  It has extensive technical expertise in satellite,
wireline and wireless communications which the Company utilizes in
a number of product and service offerings.


ITRON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Itron Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Washington alleging
violation of securities laws relating to a restatement of its
financial results, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
Federal Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging a
violation of federal securities laws relating to a restatement of
the Company's financial results for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2010.  These revisions were made
primarily to defer revenue that had been incorrectly recognized on
one contract due to a misinterpretation of an extended warranty
obligation.  The effect was to reduce revenue and earnings in each
of the first three quarters of the year.  For the first nine
months of 2010, total revenue was reduced by $6.1 million and
diluted EPS was reduced by 11 cents.  The Company believes the
facts and legal claims alleged are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its interests.


JENNY CRAIG: Employees File Class Action Over Underpayments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two Long Island women who worked for Jenny Craig filed a class-
action lawsuit alleging that the well-known weight-loss chain put
their paychecks on a diet.

The women, in a suit filed May 10 In New York State Supreme Court
in Manhattan, (Index No, 11105520) claim that Jenny Craig
Operations Inc., the Carlsbad, Calif.-based chain owned by multi-
national food giant Nestle's, improperly shortchanged them by a
1/2 hour a day for every shift they worked, even though they
worked during their 30-minute break times.  The alleged
underpayments violate New York's labor laws, according to court
papers.

"These are working women with families who work part-time to help
pay their bills," said their lawyer Jeffrey Brown, Esq., managing
partner of Leeds Morelli & Brown PC.  "Jenny Craig preys upon
these women."

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by Tammy
Weinstein, of Bellmore, who has been a program director and weight
loss consultant since November 2002 at Jenny Craig locations in
Valley Stream and Massapequa, and by Melissa Pallini, of Holbrook,
who was a weight loss consultant, program director, part time
receptionist, and stocker from June 2008, until June 2010, at the
chain's East Patchogue location.

"It's totally unnecessary for a company as successful or as large
as Jenny Craig to short change their employees in clear violation
of the law," said Lenard Leeds, Esq., also a managing partner in
the law firm.

The suit seeks to represent all New York employees of Jenny Craig
who worked as weight loss consultants, receptionists, stock
persons, program directors and any other employee at Jenny Craig
weight-loss centers.  According to court papers, the class
included more than 500 people who've worked at Jenny Craig since
May 2005.  The chain has 30 locations statewide, 10 of them on
Long Island, in Centereach, E. Patchogue, Great Neck, Farmingdale,
Freeport, Hicksville, Huntington Station, Massapequa and Valley
Stream.

The employees worked about 15 to 35 hours a week on shifts of five
to eight hours one day to five days per week, according to court
papers.

Jenny Craig is a commercial program that features portion-
controlled, prepackaged meals supplemented by store-bought
vegetables and fruit, received top marks this week from Consumer
Reports for diet success.  The chain offers support through weekly
counseling sessions.

The diet chain's celebrity spokespersons have included actress
Kirstie Alley, Valerie Bertinelli, Queen Latifah, actresses Sara
Rue and Nicole Sullivan, actor Jason Alexander and, since January,
actress Carrie Fisher.

Virginia & Ambinder LLP, of Manhattan, are co-counsel.

                   About Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC

Based in Carle Place, N.Y., Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC --
http://www.lmblaw.com-- is a New York City area law firm that
provides guidance and representation to clients with concerns
involving a broad range of legal practice areas.  The firm focuses
on the areas of employment law, civil rights, discrimination and
sexual harassment.


MOODY'S CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Appeal Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against
Moody's Corporation are seeking permission to appeal the denial of
their motion to certify the proposed class, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported
purchasers of the Company's securities against the Company and
certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.  The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19,
2007.  The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust
Fund in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on September 26, 2007.  Both actions have been consolidated
into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody's Corporation
Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities during the period February 3, 2006
through October 24, 2007.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's
business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and
financial results relating primarily to MIS's ratings of
structured finance products including residential mortgage-backed
securities, collateralized debt obligations and constant-
proportion debt obligations.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in connection with the case.  The Company moved
for dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint in September
2008.  On February 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion
dismissing certain claims and sustaining others.  On January 22,
2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals who
purchased Moody's Corporation common stock between February 3,
2006 and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed.  On
March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs'
motion to certify the proposed class.  On April 14, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal
the decision.  The Company filed its response to the petition on
April 25, 2011.


NICOR INC: Merger-Related Class Suits Still Pending in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. continues to defend itself from putative class action
lawsuits filed in Illinois in connection with its proposed merger
with AGL Resources, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2011.

Nicor, its board of directors, AGL Resources and one or both of
AGL Resources' acquisition subsidiaries and, in one instance,
Nicor's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer have
been named as defendants in six putative class action lawsuits
brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging Nicor's
proposed merger with AGL Resources, two of which, including the
lawsuit that named Nicor's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer as a defendant, have subsequently been
voluntarily dismissed.  The first action, Joseph Pirolli v. Nicor
Inc., et al. was filed on December 7, 2010 in the Eighteenth
Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division.  Four other actions were filed between
December 10, 2010 and December 17, 2010 in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division:
Maxine Phillips v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed December 10, 2010;
Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed
December 13, 2010; Gus Monahu v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed
December 17, 2010; and Roberto R. Vela v. Russ M. Strobel, et al.,
filed December 17, 2010.  The sixth action, which is both an
individual action and a putative class action, was filed on March
1, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and captioned Maxine
Phillips v. Nicor Inc.,et al. (the Federal Action).

On January 10, 2011, the four actions filed in the Cook County
Court were consolidated.  On February 18, 2011, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint Amended Complaint.
On February 28, 2011, the Phillips Action in the Cook County Court
was voluntarily dismissed and, on March 7, 2011, the Pirolli
Action in DuPage County Court was voluntarily dismissed.
Accordingly, the remaining cases pending are the Consolidated
Action and the Federal Action.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that: (a) the Nicor Board breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor
and its shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to AGL
Resources at an inadequate purchase price (and thus failing to
maximize value to Nicor shareholders), (ii) conducting an
inadequate sale process by agreeing to preclusive deal protection
provisions in the Merger Agreement and failing to solicit other
potential bids or alternative transactions and (iii) failing to
disclose material information regarding the proposed merger to
Nicor shareholders; and (b) AGL Resources, Nicor and the
acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including
an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
merger.

The Federal Action asserts both individual and purported class
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiffs allege that: (i)
Nicor and the Nicor board of directors violated Section 14(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (sometimes referred to as
the Exchange Act) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing
a materially incomplete registration statement in connection with
the proposed merger; and (ii) the Nicor board of directors
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of its
control over the content and dissemination of that registration
statement.  The Federal Action also claims that: (a) the Nicor
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor and its
shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to AGL Resources
at an inadequate price (and thus failing to maximize value to
Nicor shareholders), (ii) conducting an inadequate sale process by
agreeing to preclusive deal protection provisions in the Merger
Agreement and failing to solicit other potential bids or
alternative transactions and (iii) failing to disclose material
information regarding the proposed merger; and (b) Nicor and AGL
Resources aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The Federal Action seeks, among other things, damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining
the defendants from consummating the proposed merger.

Nicor believes the claims asserted in each lawsuit to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.  The final
disposition of these shareholder litigation-related matters is not
expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company's
liquidity or financial condition.


NICOR INC: Lock 12 Plan Sale Prompts Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. was slapped with a putative class action lawsuit
following the marketing and sale of the Lock 12 plan offered by a
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2011.

In March 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Nicor and Nicor Advanced Energy.  The plaintiff alleges that the
marketing and sale of the Lock 12 plan offered by Nicor Advanced
Energy violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and resulted in unjust enrichment of Nicor and Nicor
Advanced Energy.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
interest, costs and attorneys fees on behalf of the class of
former Nicor Gas customers who switched to the Lock 12 plan.
While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure related
thereto, if any, and has not recorded a liability associated with
this contingency, the final disposition of these matters is not
expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company's
liquidity or financial condition.


NICOR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Line Comfort Guard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
filed by Nicor Gas customers, according to the Company's May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2011.

In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were
filed in state court in Cook County, Illinois against Nicor
Services and Nicor Gas, and in one case against Nicor.  The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas
who purchased appliance warranty and service plans from Nicor
Services and/or a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased
Gas Line Comfort Guard from Nicor Services.  In these actions, the
plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, sale and billing
of the Nicor Services appliance warranty and service plans and Gas
Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and
result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Gas and Nicor Services.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to
represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys
fees and injunctive relief.  While the company is unable to
predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate its
potential exposure related thereto, if any, and has not recorded a
liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition
of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse impact
on the company's liquidity or financial condition.


OMEGA FLEX: Still Pursuing Class Suit Defense Costs Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, Omega Flex, Inc., instituted a legal complaint against a
former insurer, seeking reimbursement of amounts paid in defense
of a class action litigation, as well as supplementary payments
made in connection with the class action.  After an adverse ruling
at the trial court level, the Company appealed the ruling, and in
January 2011, the appeals court found in the Company's favor,
reversing the trial court decision and establishing the insurer's
legal obligation to reimburse the Company for the defense costs.
The case will be remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings and determination of the amount payable to the
company, which the Company estimates to be in excess of $3,000,000
together with attorneys' fees incurred in establishing the
insurer's defense obligations.  The litigation has not been fully
resolved and while the Company believes they will ultimately
prevail, further developments in the case could reduce or
eliminate any potential recoveries.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


ORECK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Halo Vacuum Deceptive Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 2011, the owner of an Oreck Halo vacuum filed a class
action against Oreck Corporation in Illinois federal court.
(Ruscitti v. Oreck Corporation 1:11-cv-03121).  The primary charge
is that Oreck misrepresented the "germ killing" abilities of its
Oreck Halo vacuum.  The lawsuit alleges that Oreck aggressively
advertised and marketed the Halo vacuum's ability to "kill and
reduce virtually all bacteria, viruses, germs, mold, and allergens
that exist on carpets and floor surfaces" including the flu and
common cold.  According to the lawsuit, such claims were not
substantiated.  The lawsuit alleges Oreck charged consumers a
substantial premium for the "germ killing" Halo vacuum, and seeks
remedies under state consumer protection laws related to false
advertising.

Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission charged Oreck with
making false and deceptive health claims regarding its Halo vacuum
and ProShield Plus air cleaner products. (FTC File No. 102 3033).

The class action lawsuit was brought by the Keogh Law, Ltd. in
Chicago, Illinois.  If you purchased an Oreck Halo or ProShield
Plus product as a result of Oreck's advertising, contact the Keogh
Law, Ltd. to learn your important rights. (312) 780-7364 or online
at http://www.keoghlaw.com/Contact.shtml


PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is awaiting final approval of an agreement to
settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Company in
Missouri, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2011.

On January 25, 2008, and February 26, 2008, purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its current
or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf
of investors who purchased its common stock during the period
between November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006.  Both lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, St. Louis Division.  Each complaint alleges that the
Company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act in connection with its disclosure of
system-wide sales and earnings guidance during the period from
November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006.  Each complaint seeks,
among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just
and proper.

On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead
plaintiff.  On August 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which extended the class period to November 1, 2005
through July 26, 2007.  Following the filing of motions by both
parties and hearings before the Court, on February 11, 2011, the
parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding
the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company's
primary directors and officers liability insurer will deposit $5.7
million into a settlement fund for payment to class members,
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs of administering the
settlement.  The settlement must be approved by the Court before
becoming effective.  The Stipulation of Settlement contains no
admission of wrongdoing.  The Company and the other defendants
have maintained and continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of
any kind with respect to the claims made in the class action
lawsuit.  However, given the potential cost and burden of
continued litigation, the Company believes the settlement is in
its best interests and the best interests of its stockholders.  On
February 22, 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
and scheduled a settlement hearing on June 22, 2011.  If the Court
grants final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court
will dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice and the
plaintiff will be deemed to have released all claims against the
Company relating to the allegations in the class action.

The Company can provide no assurance that the Court will approve
the Stipulation of Settlement.  If the Court does not approve the
Stipulation of Settlement, the Company will continue to defend
against these claims, which could have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition and business.  If these matters were
concluded in a manner adverse to the Company, it could be required
to pay substantially more in damages than the amount provided for
in the Stipulation of Settlement.  In addition, the costs to the
Company of defending any litigation or other proceeding, even if
resolved in its favor, could be substantial.  Such litigation
could also substantially divert the attention of its management
and its resources in general.


PANERA BREAD: "Sotoudeh" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Nick Sotoudeh against
Panera Bread Company in California remains pending, according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.  Panera
Bread believes it and the other defendant have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and are prepared to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


PANERA BREAD: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in Florida by former employees of its
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2011.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Denarius Lewis and Corey Weiner, former
employees of one of its subsidiaries, and Caroll Ruiz, an employee
of one of its franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.  The Company
believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in this lawsuit and are prepared to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces "Ortiz" Lawsuit in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in Virginia by Jamie Ortiz, according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2011.

On December 20, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Jamie Ortiz, a former employee of one of
its subsidiaries.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Virginia.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Mr. Ortiz also has alleged several
individual claims for Title VII retaliation, defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The complaint
seeks, among other relief, collective, and class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court might find just
and proper.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in this lawsuit and is prepared to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


PEP BOYS: Accused of Violating Minnesota Consumer Fraud Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Hoff, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack Company, Case No. 2011-
CH-16936 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 9, 2011), is filed on
behalf of all individuals who purchased a Shelterlogic
carport/canopy product advertised in the 2010 Black Friday
Circular offering a $30 rebate but who received a rebate check for
less that the advertised amount, in violation of Minnesota
Consumer Fraud statutes.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois, County of Cook.
The Pep Boys- Manny, Moe & Jack Company, a Pennsylvania
corporation, operates over 600 retail and service locations
generally offering automotive service, tires, parts and
accessories to consumers in Illinois and across approximately 36
other states in the United States and in Puerto Rico.

In November of 2010, Pep Boys ran an after Thanksgiving sales
advertisement in various publications promoting what are commonly
referred to as "Black Friday" sales.  The 2010 Black Friday
Circular offered three automobile sized Shelterlogic
canopy/carport products of varying types at various prices, and
further states that the prices advertised were good for "3-Days"
only, i.e., the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Burton I. Weinstein, Esq.
          BASKIN, SERVER, BERKE & WEINSTEIN
          20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1745
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-8090
          E-mail: biweinstein@bsbwlaw.com

               - and -

          Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON
          19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 857-9050


PG&E CORP: Continues to Defend San Bruno Accident-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
arising from an explosion involving its pipeline in San Bruno,
California, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

PG&E Corporation conducts its business principally through Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, a public utility operating in northern
and central California.

On September 9, 2010, an underground 30-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline (line 132) owned and operated by the
Utility, ruptured in a residential area located in the City of San
Bruno, California.  The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the
deaths of eight people, injuries to numerous individuals, and
extensive property damage.  The National Transportation Safety
Board has issued several public statements regarding its
investigation of the San Bruno accident but has not yet determined
the cause of the pipeline rupture.  During the quarter ended
March 31, 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission
initiated an investigation pertaining to safety recordkeeping for
the Utility's gas transmission pipeline that ruptured in San
Bruno, as well as for its entire gas transmission system.

In addition to these investigations, as of March 31, 2011, 74 tort
lawsuits on behalf of approximately 224 plaintiffs, including two
class action lawsuits, have been filed against PG&E Corporation
and the Utility.  Five of the lawsuits on behalf of 11 plaintiffs
were filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court; the rest
were filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.  These tort
lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury and property damage
and seek other relief.  The class action lawsuits allege causes of
action for strict liability, negligence, public nuisance, private
nuisance, and declaratory relief.  Several other residents of San
Bruno also have submitted damage claims to the Utility.  These
lawsuits have been coordinated and assigned to one judge in the
San Mateo County Superior Court.

The Utility recorded a provision of $220 million in 2010 for
estimated third-party claims related to the San Bruno accident,
including personal injury and property damage claims, damage to
infrastructure, and other damage claims.  The provision also
included estimated liabilities to reimburse the City of San Bruno
for costs it incurred related to the fires caused by the pipeline
rupture.  As of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $198 million
and $214 million, respectively, was accrued as a liability in PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  The change in the liability from December 31, 2010 was
due to payments made to third parties.

The Utility currently estimates that it may incur as much as $400
million for third-party claims.  As more information becomes
known, including information resulting from the NTSB and CPUC
investigations, management's estimates and assumptions regarding
the amount of third-party liability incurred in connection with
the San Bruno accident may change.  It is possible that a change
in estimate could have a material adverse impact on PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

The Utility maintains liability insurance for damages in the
approximate amount of $992 million in excess of a $10 million
deductible.  Although PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently
consider it likely that a significant portion of the costs the
Utility incurs for third-party claims relating to the San Bruno
accident will ultimately be covered through this insurance, no
amount for insurance recoveries has been recorded as of March 31,
2011.  PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the
amount and timing of insurance recoveries.


PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Suit Over SmartMeter Bill Generation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kern County Superior Court in Bakersfield, California,
dismissed a class action complaint alleging that PG&E
Corporation's SmartMeter(TM) system generated inaccurate bills and
led to overcharges, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in federal and California
state courts against the various companies that have supplied
SmartMeter(TM) devices, components, and software to the Company.
The complaints allege that the new meters report electric
consumption in amounts materially greater than the electricity
that the class members actually consumed, resulting in electric
bill overcharges.

On April 11, 2011, the Kern County Superior Court in Bakersfield,
California dismissed a pending class action complaint that had
alleged that the SmartMeter(TM) system generated inaccurate bills
and led to overcharges, among other allegations.


PRECEDENCE EQUITY: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aishah Muhammad, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Precedence Equity Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2011-
CH-16949 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 9, 2011), seeks redress for
the conduct of defendant in taking collection action prohibited by
the Illinois Collection Agency Act.  Count 1 seeks vacation of
void judgments.  Counts II and III allege violation of the ICAA.
Count IV alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Counts V and VI seek common law relief against the attorneys
responsible for the filings.

Defendant Precedence Equity, which claims to acquire defaulted
debts originally owed to others, became regulated by the ICAA
since January 1, 2008, but did not obtain a license until
September 9, 2008.  Between January 1, 2008, and September 9,
2008, the plaintiff relates, defendant instituted lawsuits against
more than 100 Illinois consumers, and also collected money from
other Illinois consumers.  The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
defendant by F, K & M Law Offices, LLC, through attorneys Daniel
K. Kubacki, Esq., and Chris Fotopoulos, Esq., who also filed
numerous suits on behalf of other unlicensed collection agencies.

Plaintiff Muhammad is an individual who resides in Cook County,
Illinois.  Defendant Precedence Equity is engaged in the business
of claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing
the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and
otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Plan Trustee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit filed by a trustee of Fairmount
Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, according to the Company's May
4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life Insurance Company.  Principal Life's motion
to transfer venue was granted and the case is now pending in the
Southern District of Iowa.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties
while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose,
or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact
that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual
funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and
allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the
services provided to the plans. Plaintiff further alleged that
these acts constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA.
Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  The plaintiff's new motion for
class certification, filed May 11, 2009, was stricken by the court
on March 31, 2010.  Principal Life continues to aggressively
defend the lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cruise & Mullaney Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit initiated by Cruise
and Mullaney, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal
Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.
The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to
manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available.  Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
including all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those
plans that invested in PUSPSA between September 26, 2008, and the
present that have suffered losses caused by the queue.  The two
lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting
similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re
Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.  On April 22, 2010, an
order was entered granting the motion made by the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants for change of venue to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.  The plaintiffs have filed a
Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs.  The
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.


REALOGY CORP: Oral Arguments in Cooper Litigation Set for May 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in the class action alleging consumer fraud against
Cendant Corporation, et al., is set to begin on May 26, 2011,
Realogy Corporation disclosed in its May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Realogy Corp. was incorporated on January 27, 2006 to facilitate a
plan by Cendant to separate Cendant into four independent
companies -- real estate services (Realogy), travel distribution
services (Travelport), hospitality services (Wyndham Worldwide)
and vehicle rental businesses (Avis Budget Group).

In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative
class action against Cendant and Cendant's subsidiary, Century 21
Real Estate Corporation (N.J. Super. Ct. L. Div., Morris County,
New Jersey).  The complaint alleges breach of certain provisions
of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between
Century 21 and the plaintiffs, breach of the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and breach of certain express and implied fiduciary duties.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Cendant diverted
money and resources from Century 21 franchisees and allotted them
to NRT owned brokerages and otherwise improperly charged expenses
to advertising funds.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, if
applicable provides for treble damages, attorney's fees and costs
as remedies for violation of the Act.  On August 17, 2010, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a class.  The
certified class includes Century 21 franchisees at any time
between August 1, 1995 and April 17, 2002 whose franchise
agreements contain New Jersey choice of law and venue provisions
and who have not executed releases releasing the claim (unless the
release was a provision of a franchise renewal agreement).

A case management order was entered on November 29, 2010 that
includes, among other deadlines, a trial date of April 16, 2012.
On December 20, 2010, the court held a status conference to
address plaintiffs' motion regarding notice to be issued to the
class, the language of the notice, publication of the notice and
how class members can opt out of the class.  As directed by a
court order, Century 21 has delivered to plaintiffs' counsel and
Rust Consulting, Inc. -- the Notice Administrator -- lists of the
names and contact information for (1) franchisees that meet the
class definition, and (2) franchisees that would have met the
class definition but for the fact that they signed a waiver of
claims against Century 21.  Pursuant to the court order, the
Notice Administrator has advised Realogy Corp. that the notice of
pendency of the action was mailed to possible class members on
March 4, 2011, and a summary of that notice has been published in
various print and online media.  Following many months of effort
directed at class identification, the case has now moved to very
active discovery on the merits.  Motions are also pending seeking
to enjoin certain Century 21 contractual practices associated with
amendments or financial settlements that result in franchisees
signing waivers of claims asserted on their behalf as class
members in the Cooper Litigation.  Oral argument has been set for
May 26, 2011.  This class action involves substantial, complex
litigation.  Class action litigation is inherently unpredictable
and subject to significant uncertainties.  The resolution of the
Cooper Litigation could result in substantial losses and there can
be no assurance that such resolution will not have a material
adverse effect on Realogy Corp.'s results of operations, financial
condition or liquidity.


SILICON IMAGE: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a New York District Court's final approval of a
settlement that resolves a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Silicon Image, Inc., and others, remains pending,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On December 7, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants, along with the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering, in a securities class
action lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
participated in a scheme to inflate the price of the Company's
stock in its initial public offering and in the aftermarket
through a series of misstatements and omissions associated with
the offering.  The lawsuit is one of several hundred similar cases
pending in the Southern District of New York that have been
consolidated by the court.  In February 2003, the District Court
issued an order denying a motion to dismiss by all defendants on
common issues of law.  In July 2003, the Company, along with over
300 other issuers named as defendants, agreed to a settlement of
this litigation with plaintiffs.  While the parties' request for
court approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
District Court's determination that six focus cases could be
certified as class actions.  In April 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that
the District Court might certify a more limited class.  At a June
26, 2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed
settlement as stipulated among the parties.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases, which was withdrawn on October 10, 2008.  On November 13,
2007 defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the district
court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants
(including the Company), the underwriter defendants, and the
insurance carriers for the defendants, have engaged in mediation
and settlement negotiations.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire
payment obligation under the terms of the settlement.  On June 10,
2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement agreement.  After a September 10, 2009
hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement
on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors to the settlement have
filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for
the Second Circuit from the District Court's order granting final
approval of the settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the Company says there can be no guarantee
that it will not be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to these claims.  If the settlement is
not implemented and the litigation continues against the Company,
the Company would continue to defend against this action
vigorously.  In light of the uncertainty of the appellate process,
and any subsequent proceedings in the trial court in the event the
settlement is reversed on appeal, the Company is unable to
determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against them
and is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend TCPA-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthera Corporation, which was acquired by Solta Medical, Inc.,
in February 2010, continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 4, 2009, Aesthera Corporation was served with a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited
fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, and Connecticut
state law.  The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax
advertisements to be sent from August 1, 2006, through the
present.  Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and
Connecticut state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action,
and an injunction to prevent any future violations.  In May 2010,
the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter
on a class-wide basis by consenting to certification of a
settlement class to receive payment out of a settlement fund.  On
November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
certification of a settlement class and for preliminary approval
of the parties' settlement.  On April 15, 2011, the District Court
denied plaintiffs' motion without prejudice on the grounds that
the proposed means of giving notice to the class -- i.e., via fax
-- was not the best practicable notice, as required by Federal
Rule 23(c)(2)(B).  The Court further advised that plaintiffs'
motion could be resubmitted and that notice should be provided to
the class via first class mail, with the cost of such notice to be
borne by Aesthera without reduction to the settlement fund.
Plaintiffs have not yet submitted a revised motion, but the
Company anticipates the parties will adjust the settlement to meet
the Court's term. Discovery in this action has been stayed since
May 6, 2010, and on December 9, 2010, the Court extended that stay
until March 9, 2011, so as to permit itself "an opportunity to
review and rule upon [plaintiffs'] pending motion."  If the
current process does not result in approval of a settlement, then
the Company anticipates that the parties will engage in discovery
and that Aesthera will vigorously oppose certification of a class.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this
action and intends to defend the action vigorously if the proposed
settlement is not approved by the Court.  The Company does not
believe the final disposition of this action will have a material
adverse effect on its financial statements and future cash flows.


SONY CORP: Faces 25 Lawsuits Over User Data Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that the recent hacker
attack at Sony Corp and other corporate data breaches are
attracting more class-action lawyers eager to score a payday,
though huge monetary settlements may be elusive.

At least 25 lawsuits have been filed against Sony in U.S. federal
courts over the theft of user data from the PlayStation game
network, according to Westlaw, a Thomson Reuters Corp legal
database.

The lawsuits accuse Sony of negligence and breach of contract for
allowing the personal data of more than 100 million online video
game users to be compromised and stolen.

The challenge for plaintiffs' lawyers in security breach cases is
not proving liability on the part of companies, but establishing
damages, according to attorneys involved in this kind of
litigation.

Sony has been criticized for not telling customers quickly enough
last month that their personal data was compromised.  The consumer
electronics company said it is possible that whoever broke into
Sony's system made off with about 12.3 million credit card
numbers.

"Had Sony properly secured its database through known and
available encryption methods, even if a hacker were able to enter
the network, he would be limited in his ability to inflict harm,"
one lawsuit says.

A Sony representative declined to comment.  The company has
apologized to its customers.

Judges are just beginning to address whether the disclosure of
someone's personally identifiable information (PII) represents a
loss of value, or if plaintiffs must show they suffered additional
costs because of a hack.

Last month, a federal judge in Oakland, California, declined to
dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit over a 2009 data breach at
RockYou, which develops applications for Facebook and other social
networking sites.  The plaintiffs claim they provided PII in
exchange for products and services.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that allegation
sufficient to allow the lawsuit to move forward, but ruled that
the case will fail if the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate tangible
harm from the breach.

Still, with even more personal information spreading online via
cloud computing, which allows users to store files on the
Internet, some plaintiffs' attorneys think the dollar awards will
get bigger.

"The breaches will become more spectacular in the future," said
Ira Rothken, Esq., a San Francisco-based lawyer who handles
privacy class actions.

Ms. Rothken filed a motion on May 9 to consolidate all the Sony
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The FBI and attorney general in New York also are
investigating the security breach.

Data breach cases also have attracted larger class-action law
firms that are better known for bringing shareholder securities
fraud litigation.

Milberg LLP, a veteran securities class-action law firm, is among
those that have filed lawsuits over the Sony incident.  The firm
started to devote resources to online class actions "within the
last year or so," partner Peter Seidman, Esq., said.

San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the national
class-action firm started by one-time Milberg defector William
Lerach, also sued Sony.  If the lawsuits were consolidated, a
judge would decide which lawyers will represent the plaintiffs --
and be in line to recoup most of the fees.

A boutique law firm representing the RockYou plaintiffs, Edelson
McGuire in Chicago, is also representing plaintiffs in the Sony
case.  The firm, which has long litigated data breach and Internet
privacy lawsuits, has grown from five to 20 attorneys over the
last three years, partner Jay Edelson, Esq., said.

There have been 190 reported data breaches this year, up from 142
in all of 2005, according to a tracking database maintained by the
Open Security Foundation . In 2010, the number of reported
breaches stood at 493, down from 624 the year before.

But Internet privacy-related lawsuits do not yield the nine-figure
settlements that can be found in classic securities fraud cases,
Mr. Edelson said.

Attorneys' fees in breach cases have historically topped out at $7
million to $8 million, he said.  One of the largest early data
breach cases, involving Internet advertising company Doubleclick,
settled in 2002, and paid $1.8 million in legal fees.

Companies will often propose solutions like free credit monitoring
as part if a settlement.  Indeed, Sony has already offered its
customers complimentary enrollment in an identity theft protection
plan.

Karen Johnson-McKewan, Esq., a partner at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP who defends technology companies, said privacy cases
could be more popular with plaintiff lawyers as the U.S. Supreme
Court makes it more difficult to pursue other kinds of class
actions.

"This looks like potentially rich vein in their view," she said.


SONY NETWORK: Faces 14th Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Bova, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Network Entertainment America, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02316 (N.D. Calif. May 10, 2011), charges Sony with
failing to adequately protect the personal and financial user
account information of millions of users of its PlayStation
Network and Qriocity services, and failing to promptly and
properly notify those users of the compromise of their personal
and financial information following an unauthorized intrusion of
Sony's data systems by third-parties unknown.

Between April 17 to 19, 2011, an unknown person or persons gained
access to PlayStation Network and stole the personal information
of every registered Sony Online Services account holder, including
users' names, addresses, e-mail addresses, birthdates, logins and
handles/PSN online IDs, passwords and the answers to private
security questions, and may have also stolen those users'
financial information, including their credit card numbers,
billing addresses, and purchase histories.

Robert M. Bova is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Mr. Bova purchased a Sony PlayStation 3 console and has had a user
account on the PlayStation Network for more than one year, for
which he provided defendants personally identifying information
including his name, address, country, e-mail address, and
birthdate as well as his credit card number.  On April 20, 2011,
Mr. Bova was no longer able to access the PlayStation Network.
Mr. Bova is one of approximately 400,000 Massachusetts residents
estimated to be affected by the Sony network data breach.

Sony Network Entertainment America, Inc. ("SNEA"), is a Delaware
corporation with its executive offices, principal place of
business, and corporate headquarters in Foster City, California.
SNEA was formed on April 1, 2010, and handles Sony's Bravia brand
of televisions, Blu-ray players, and, as of April 1, 2011, is
responsible for all Sony Online Services including the PlayStation
Network and Qriocity.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betty C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTE1N ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street. Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq.
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com

               - and -

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




STREAM GLOBAL: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Sirius XM Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a settlement reached in a class action suit
alleging violation of privacy rights is pending before a Los
Angeles court, according to Stream Global Services, Inc.'s May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Stream Global was named as a third-party defendant in a putative
class action captioned Kambiz Batmanghelich, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court on November 10, 2009, and removed to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Sirius XM Radio, Inc. recorded telephone
conversations between Plaintiff and members of the proposed class
of Sirius customers, on the one hand, and Sirius and its
employees, on the other, without the Plaintiff's and class
members' consent in violation of California's telephone recording
laws.  The Plaintiff also alleges negligence and violation of the
common law right of privacy, and seeks injunctive relief.  Stream
Global believes that it has meritorious defenses and it intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.  On December 21, 2009,
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed a Third-Party Complaint in the action
against Stream Global, seeking indemnification for any defense
costs and damages that result from the putative class action.  On
March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
added Stream Global as a defendant.  In March 2011, the court
granted preliminary approval of a settlement proposal,
conditionally certified the settlement class, and approved the
form of class notice.  Final approval of the settlement must still
be granted by the court, following the process set forth in the
court's preliminary approval order.

Stream Global Services, Inc. is a leading global business process
outsourcing service provider specializing in customer relationship
management, including sales, customer care and technical support,
for Fortune 1000 companies.  Its clients include leading
technology, computing, telecommunications, retail,
entertainment/media, and financial services companies.  Its
service programs are delivered through a set of standardized best
practices and sophisticated technologies by a highly skilled
multilingual workforce with the ability to support 35 languages
across 50 locations in 22 countries.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Certification Motion in Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on a class
certification motion filed in a consolidated securities suit
against the Company's directors and officers in Texas, according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current and former
officers.  The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and
Alan Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's
current officers.  The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008 and
March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones
case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be
consolidated with the cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are
virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  A class has not been
certified.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases
have been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of
Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been
selected (the "Buettgen" case).  On April 12, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint.  On
August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, the Court
entered a scheduling order setting out a timetable for proceedings
to consider class certification and administratively closing the
case.  The plaintiffs have filed their class certification motion,
the Company filed its opposition on January 14, 2011, and the
motion is now fully briefed.  The Company awaits the order of the
court.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

SuperMedia Inc. and its subsidiaries sells advertising solutions
to clients and places their advertising into various advertising
media.  The Company's advertising media include Superpages yellow
page directories, Superpages.com, its online local search
resource, the Superpages.com network, an online advertising
network, Superpages direct mailers, and Superpages mobile, its
local search application for wireless subscribers.  The Company
offers the SuperGuarantee program, which is a consumer focused
program designed to make it easier and faster for consumers to
find businesses they trust.  The Company is the official publisher
of Verizon Communications Inc. print directories in the markets in
which Verizon is currently the incumbent local telephone exchange
carrier.


SUPERMEDIA INC: EBC's Motion to Dismiss ERISA Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc.'s employee benefits committee's motion to dismiss
ERISA claims in a purported class action related to employee
benefits is pending before a Texas court, the Company disclosed in
its May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon employee benefits committee and pension plans and the
SuperMedia employee benefits committee (EBC) and pension plans.
All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits.  All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the
SuperMedia pension plans at or near SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
ERISA; that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached
their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan
information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the
Verizon defendants.  The plaintiffs seek class action status,
statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee
transfers.  SuperMedia filed its motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on March 10, 2010.  On October 18, 2010, the Court ruled
on the pending motion dismissing all the claims against the
SuperMedia pension plans and all of the claims against
SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production of documents and
statutory penalties for failure to produce same.  The only claims
remaining against SuperMedia are procedural ERISA claims against
the SuperMedia EBC.  On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed
its answer to the complaint.  On November 4, 2010, the
SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two
remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.  Pursuant to an
agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class certification
against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced.  The
Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

SuperMedia Inc. and its subsidiaries sells advertising solutions
to clients and places their advertising into various advertising
media.  The Company's advertising media include Superpages yellow
page directories, Superpages.com, its online local search
resource, the Superpages.com network, an online advertising
network, Superpages direct mailers, and Superpages mobile, its
local search application for wireless subscribers.  The Company
offers the SuperGuarantee program, which is a consumer focused
program designed to make it easier and faster for consumers to
find businesses they trust.  The Company is the official publisher
of Verizon Communications Inc. print directories in the markets in
which Verizon is currently the incumbent local telephone exchange
carrier.


SUPERMEDIA INC: To File Another Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is planning on filing another motion to dismiss in
a purported ERISA class action in Texas after plaintiffs have
replead their complaint, according to the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current
and former officers, directors and members of the Company's
employee benefits committee or EBC.  The complaint attempts to
recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were
allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA of the defendants in administrating the plans from
November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that:
(i) the defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in
Idearc common stock, (ii) the defendants made material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's financial performance
and condition, (iii) the defendants had divided loyalties,
(iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain
defendants breached their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of
required disclosures.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses.
At this time, a class has not been certified.  The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated complaint.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010.  On  March 16,
2011, the Court granted the Company defendants' motion to dismiss
the entire complaint, however, the plaintiffs have replead their
complaint which will cause the Company defendants to file another
motion to dismiss.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.

SuperMedia Inc. and its subsidiaries sells advertising solutions
to clients and places their advertising into various advertising
media.  The Company's advertising media include Superpages yellow
page directories, Superpages.com, its online local search
resource, the Superpages.com network, an online advertising
network, Superpages direct mailers, and Superpages mobile, its
local search application for wireless subscribers.  The Company
offers the SuperGuarantee program, which is a consumer focused
program designed to make it easier and faster for consumers to
find businesses they trust.  The Company is the official publisher
of Verizon Communications Inc. print directories in the markets in
which Verizon is currently the incumbent local telephone exchange
carrier.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Three Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three federal securities class action lawsuits filed against
Transocean Ltd. remain pending in a New York court, according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Two federal securities law class actions are currently pending in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.
Two of these actions generally allege violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Macondo well incident.  The plaintiffs are
generally seeking awards of unspecified economic damages,
including damages resulting from the decline in the Company's
stock price after the Macondo well incident.  The third action was
filed by a former GlobalSantaFe shareholder, alleging that the
proxy statement related to the Company's shareholder meeting in
connection with the Company's merger with GlobalSantaFe violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff
claims that GlobalSantaFe shareholders received inadequate
consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged
violations and seeks rescission and compensatory damages.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.
Specializing in technically demanding sectors of the offshore
drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh
environment drilling services, the Company contracts its drilling
rigs, related equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate
basis to drill oil and gas wells.


UNITED STATES: DHHR Sued Over Child Support Enforcement Failings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Smith, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
the state Department of Health and Human Resources is accused once
again of failing to be diligent in its enforcement of certain
child support orders.

Six women from across West Virginia initiated a class-action
lawsuit on April 25 against DHHR in Kanawha Circuit Court.  In
their suit, Cynthia Kerner, Lori Coon, Robin Danberry, Kathy
Cooper, Cecilia Nash and Lisa Roth, allege the failure of
caseworkers from DHHR's Bureau of Child Support Enforcement to
keep tabs on their cases caused them, and their respective
children, financial hardship.

The case was initially filed in 2009, but dismissed in August on
the grounds the state Attorney General's Office was not served
with the required 30-day pre-suit notice.  Along with DHHR, the
current suit names DHHR Secretary Michael J. Lewis, BCSE, its
interim commissioner, Garrett M. Jacobs and Policy Studies, Inc.,
a Denver, Colo.-based company that provides logistical support to
BCSE.

According to the suit, BCSE beginning in 2005, petitioned the
respective family courts where the women had their support orders
to affirm arrearages.  The alleged arrearages ranged as high as
$75,000 in Roth's case to as low as $2,500 in Ms. Coon's case.

However, despite affirming the arrearages as stated in the BCSE
petitions, the judges in the respective cases ruled the women were
only entitled to, at best, collect a portion what was due them
because of the state Supreme Court rulings in Shaffer v. Stanley
and Hedrick v. Taylor.  In those cases, the Court affirmed a 10-
year statute of limitations on collecting unpaid support orders
especially though administrative proceedings such as tax refund
offsets.

The decision in Ms. Coon and Ms. Cooper's cases was especially
detrimental as they lost the ability to collect anything.
According to the suit, Ms. Cooper's ex-husband was in arrears
$26,517.

In Ms. Cooper's case specifically, the suit alleges BCSE and PSI
were fully aware the statute of limitations passed that they had
her sign a release stating the judgment was "paid in full" in an
attempt to cover-up their negligence.

In their suit, the women make claims against the defendants for
breach of statutory duty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of trust and fraud.  They allege the failure of DHHR to
actively pursue their respective support orders has caused them
"aggravation, inconvenience and annoyance."

Along with certification of the suit as class-action, the women
ask they, and other potential class members, be awarded
unspecified damages, court costs, interest and attorney's fees.
They are represented by Charleston attorneys Charles R. Webb, Esq.
with the Webb Law Firm and Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. with DiTrapano,
Barrett and DiPiero.

The case is assigned to Judge Paul Zakaib.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 11-C-666.


UNUM GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit in Maine
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. subsidiary of Unum Group continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in Maine, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  This is a putative class action alleging that Unum
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
certain group life insurance policies when it paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were employee welfare benefit plans under ERISA and under which
Unum paid death benefits pursuant to a retained asset account.
Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class the difference
between the interest paid to them and amounts alleged to have been
realized by Unum through its investment of the retained assets.
Unum intends to vigorously defend the action.


USAA CASUALTY: Accused in Or. of Using Fraudulent File Reviews
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that USAA insurance cheats military families
of medical treatment for auto-accident injuries.  The class claims
the insurer uses "fraudulent file reviews in order to deprive
plaintiffs, and those like them, of their medical treatment and
thereby save USAA money at the expense of servicemen and women,
and their families."

The four named plaintiffs, all women, are on active duty, or the
daughter or wife of a servicewoman or serviceman who are military
veterans or on active duty.  All say USAA Casualty Insurance or
one of its clones refused to pay legitimate claims for medical
expenses after auto accidents.

Defendants include USAA Casualty Insurance Co., United Services
Automobile Association, USAA General Indemnity Co., USAA County
Mutual Insurance Corp., Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance,
Auto Injury Solutions, Inc., and chiropractors Clark Wolf III and
Ross Hart.

Plaintiff Margaret Soukup, on active duty, says she was "induced
into" hiring USAA as her primary insurer for her and her family.

"USAA touted its commitment to servicing military families and
advertised the 'exclusive privileges of its auto insurance,'
noting that, 'For those who stood tall for this country and for
their families, we stand ready to return the favor,'" the
complaint states.

After she was injured in a rear-end collision, and submitted a
claim for personal injuries, she says that without her knowledge,
USAA referred her claim to Auto Injury Solutions (AIS), which
prepared "sham file reviews" that USAA uses to "uniformly conclude
that medical treatment was not needed."

Brittney Bathurst, the daughter of a military veteran, says she
was nearly killed in a "T-bone" collision in Minnesota, and that
USAA referred her claim to AIS, which "prepared a sham file
review, purportedly created by a Leslie Kancir, an acupuncturist
located in Lakewood, Colorado."

Ms. Bathurst says Ms. Kancir's signature on the bogus file review
was "an 'electronic' signature;" that "the report states in no
uncertain terms that 'A Physician Review has been completed;'" and
that that statement "is absolutely false."

Amber DeMerritt says she was injured in Oregon, and USAA and AIS
cooked up "at least four sham file review reports, purportedly
created by a George D. Sage, a chiropractor in Decatur, Georgia."

Samantha Jones says the defendants created "nine sham file
reviews" and used them to deny her coverage.

They seek punitive damages for the class, for breach of contract,
breach of faith, and violations of insurance laws and regulations.

A copy of the Complaint in Soukup, et al. v. USAA Casualty
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00565 (D. Or.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/12/MilInsure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Gatti, Esq.
          Ron L. Sayer, Esq.
          GATTI, GATTI, MAIER, SAYER, THAYER, SMITH & ASSOC.
          1781 Liberty Street SE
          Salem, OR 97302
          Telephone: (503) 363-3443
          E-mail: djgatti@comcast.net
                  jhunking@gattilaw.com
                  jclifford@gattilaw.com


VISA: Gift Card Class Action Hearing Canceled
---------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for the Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a hearing set on May 13 in a 2010 class action filed against
Visa Inc. and other defendants over the value of purchased gift
cards was canceled.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge signed the order
canceling the May 13 hearing on May 11 and granting the plaintiffs
in the case leave to amend their complaint to clear up proposed
class definitions.

Plaintiffs Karen and Gene Rhodes filed suit against Visa, Services
Credit Union, and 1st MidAmerica Credit Union -- formerly Olin
Community Credit Union -- last November.

The suit seeks to represent a class of Illinois residents who
purchased Visa Gift Cards from the defendants for a set amount
only to find that the cards were not worth what was paid due to
fees deducted from the cards' value.

The suit seeks damages for an unspecified amount on claims that
the defendants violated consumer fraud and other statutes.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois last year.

The federal court remanded the case to Madison County.

The plaintiffs filed their motion seeking certification of the
suit's class on March 30.

Should Judge Mudge grant the motion, it would include four sub-
classes.

They are:

   -- The unjust enrichment class consisting of all Illinois
residents who on or after Nov. 12, 2005, held gift cards sold by
the credit unions that lost value prior to their expiration dates
as a result of administrative fees.

  -- The unjust enrichment sub-class consisting of all those
Illinois residents who held gift cards issued by the credit unions
that were pre-activated and subsequently reduced by fees before
they were sold.

   -- An Illinois Consumer Fraud Act class made up of all Illinois
residents who had cards from Nov. 12, 2007, or that lost values
before they expired due to administrative fees.

   -- A sub-class on the consumer fraud act claims relating to the
preactivation and value loss of the cards prior to sale.

The Rhodeses filed a move to amend their complaint on the same day
as the class certification motion.  That amendment, they argue,
would clarify class definitions.

Judge Mudge's May 11 order also gives the defendants until May 30
to answer or plead on the amended complaint's claims.

Mark Goldenberg, Esq., represents the plaintiffs.  Karen Rhodes is
Gene Rhodes' daughter-in-law.

Daniel Ryan and Mark Bauman represent Services Credit Union.

Mitten Nelson, Esq., represents 1st MidAmerica.

There is not an attorney for Visa listed in the case file as yet.

The case was initially assigned to then-Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack prior to his retirement from the bench last
year.

The case is Madison case number 10-L-1155.


WARREN COUNTY, NJ: Suit Over Faulty Radon Systems May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
NJ.com reports that a New Jersey Appeals Court ruled on May 12
that a case alleging faulty radon systems involving hundreds of
condominium units in Warren County may proceed.  This decision
upholds a trial court certification of the case as a class action.

The case involves a condominium complex called Overlook at
Lopatcong.  At issue are allegations that radon systems installed
when these units were built were, in some instances, defectively
installed.  There was also sworn testimony submitted to the court
that radon test results were fabricated in certain instances in
order for certificates of occupancy to be issued by the
municipality, according to the plaintiffs' legal counsel.

In 2010, a Warren County trial judge certified the case as a class
action against the developer of the complex, the radon
installation company and others.  The defendants had appealed that
decision, claiming the trial court had abused its discretion when
it certified the class.

In the decision issued on May 12, the appeals court disagreed and
found that the trial court's decision to certify the case as a
class action was supported by the record.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq. of Princeton's Lieberman & Blecher,
represents the class members.  Mr. Lieberman stated, "We are
pleased with the court's decision and we look forward to having a
jury hear this important case."

Mr. Lieberman may be reached at:

          Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq.
          LIEBERMAN & BLECHER
          10 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 100
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Tel: (732) 355-1311
          E-mail: info@liebermanblecher.com


WESTERN UNION: Motion to Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Claim Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company is awaiting a court ruling on its motion
to dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty claim in a purported class
action in Colorado, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments.  The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009.  The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.  On September 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.  On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint.  On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied Western Union's motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment and conversion claims.  On February 4, 2011, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims.  On
March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its
declaratory relief claim and Western Union Financial Services,
Inc. as a defendant.  On April 25, 2011, the Company and Western
Union Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims.  The
plaintiffs have not sought and the Court has not granted class
certification.  The Company and Western Union Financial Services,
Inc. intend to vigorously defend themselves against both lawsuits.
However, due to the preliminary stages of these lawsuits, the fact
the plaintiffs have not quantified their damage demands, and the
uncertainty as to whether they will ever be certified as class
actions, the potential outcome cannot be determined.

Western Union is a leader in global money movement and payment
services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and
convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world.
The Western Union(R) brand is globally recognized.  The Company's
services are available through a network of agent locations in
more than 200 countries and territories.


                            *********

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  * * *