CAR_Public/110518.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 97

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of "Weber" Suit Not Yet Final
APPALACHIAN POWER: Petition to Remand "Mississippi" Suit Denied
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: "380544 Canada" Class Suit Still Pending in NY
AT&T INC: Judge Decertifies Class in Wage Class Action

AU OPTRONICS: Continues to Defend California Antitrust Suit
AUSTRALIA: Supreme Court Judge Tosses Bushfire Class Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Stevens" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Wage-Related "Moore" Suit

CBS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending in NY
CENTEX CORP: 9th Cir. Hears Arguments in Subprime Class Action
CHASE BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Check Loans
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
DEL MONTE: Former Employees Mull Overtime Class Action

ELIOT HOUSE: Sued For Failing to Pay Interest on Security Deposits
EPSILON FMI: Sued for Exposing Confidential Information
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
GULF RESOURCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Labeling

ILD TELESERVICES: Sued for Engaging in Billing Conspiracy
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
KOHl'S CORP: Removes "Whittenburg" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif
LG DISPLAY: Trial in U.S. Antitrust Suits Set for February 2012
LG DISPLAY: Gets Final Approval of Shareholder Suit Settlement

MASTER-EXTERIORS LLC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
MEDIFAST INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Illegal Foreclosures
NABOR INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Superior Deal
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Board Refuses Demands Arising From Class Suit

NVR INC: Wage Suits Still Stayed Pending Development in NY Action
OHIO EDISON: Appeal from Dismissal of Class Action Still Pending
PEOPLES ENERGY: Tetzlaff Seeks Dismissal of Malpractice Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued for Collecting Debts While Unlicensed
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Recalls 1,000 PlayBook Tablets With Faulty OS

SEQUENOM INC: Continues to Await Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
SIRIUS XM: Expects Trial in "Blessing" Suit to be Set This Summer
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Class Action in South Carolina Still Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
TENET HEALTHCARE: To Seek OK of "Katrina" Suit Settlement in July

UNITEDHEALTH: Class Action Lawsuits in Florida Still Pending
UNITED PARCEL: Decertification Decision in "Marlo" Suit Upheld
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Suits Over Rebranding
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend "Barber" Suit in Alabama
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suit in New York

UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Class Action Settlement Gets Nod
VESTAS WIND: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
WILLIAMS COS: Expects Trial on 2nd Claim in Royalty Fee Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: "Downes" Suit Vs. Pension Plan Still Pending




                             *********

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., (along with Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as
defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the
Company alleging violations arising under the  Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-
transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's
subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party
vendors.  Plaintiffs seek to have this case certified as a class
action and seek restitution and other damages, all in an amount in
excess of $5 million.  The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2011.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of "Weber" Suit Not Yet Final
---------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc., disclosed in its May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, that its settlement of a
consumer class action lawsuit filed by Debra A. Weber does not
affect any rights Ms. Weber may have to appeal the dismissal.

On May 18, 2007, Debra A. Weber filed a consumer class action
lawsuit against the Company, OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear
Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc.) in Syracuse, New York,
U.S. District Court.  The complaint alleges two causes of action
against the OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against
the Company for breach of contract.  The cause of action against
the Company titled "Breach of Third Party Benefit Contract"
references its agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to
OrthoClear patients, alleging that the Company failed "to provide
the promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the class members."
On June 2, 2010, the Court granted its motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the Company from the action.
On June 29, 2010, Ms. Weber requested that the Court enter final
judgment as to Align pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) in order to certify Align's dismissal for immediate appeal.
The Company filed an opposition to Ms. Weber's request on
July 19, 2010, on the grounds that Ms. Weber failed to show that
exceptional circumstances warranted the entry of a final judgment
where fewer than all claims or parties had been dismissed.  On
August 20, 2010, the Court denied Ms. Weber's motion.  On
October 29, 2010, the Court dismissed the action against
OrthoClear and OrthoClear Holdings Inc. with prejudice at the
request of the remaining parties pursuant to a settlement.  The
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered by the
Court provides that the settlement and dismissal does not affect
any rights Ms. Weber may have to appeal dismissal of the action as
against the Company.  The Company believes there is no evidence to
indicate that a reasonable possibility exists that a loss had been
incurred as of March 31, 2011.


APPALACHIAN POWER: Petition to Remand "Mississippi" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition to remand to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a putative class action filed by
Mississippi residents, according to Appalachian Power Company's
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: "380544 Canada" Class Suit Still Pending in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v.
Aspen Technology, Inc., remains pending in New York court,
according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In March 2006, the Company settled class action litigation,
including related derivative claims, arising out of its originally
filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through
2004, the accounting for which the Company restated in March 2005.
Certain members of the class (representing 1,457,969 shares of
common stock (or less than 1% of the shares putatively purchased
during the class action period)) opted out of the settlement and
had the right to bring their own state or federal law claims
against the Company, referred to as "opt-out" claims.  Opt-out
claims were filed on behalf of the holders of approximately 1.1
million of such shares.  All but one of these actions were settled
and/or dismissed.

The remaining action, 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen
Technology, Inc., was filed on February 15, 2007, in the federal
district court for the Southern District of New York and docketed
as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-01204-JFK in that court.  The claims in
this action include claims against the Company and one or more of
its former officers alleging securities and common law fraud,
breach of contract, deceptive practices and/or rescissory damages
liability, based on the restated results of one or more fiscal
periods included in the Company's restated consolidated financial
statements referenced in the class action.  This action was
brought by persons who purchased 566,665 shares of the Company's
common stock in a private placement.  Certain motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants were resolved on May 5, 2009.  The
claims in the 380544 Canada action are for damages totaling at
least $4.0 million, not including claims for attorneys' fees.  The
Company plans to defend the 380544 Canada action vigorously.

The Company can provide no assurance as to the outcome of this
case or the likelihood of the filing of additional opt-out claims,
and these claims may result in judgments against it for
significant damages.  Regardless of the outcome, such litigation
has resulted in the past, and may continue to result in the
future, in significant legal expenses and may require significant
attention and resources of management, all of which could result
in losses and damages that have a material adverse effect on its
business.

                         About AspenTech

Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Aspen Technology Inc.
(Nasdaq: AZPN) -- http://www.aspentech.com/-- provides process
optimization software and services.  AspenTech's integrated
aspenONE(TM) solutions enable manufacturers to reduce costs,
increase capacity, and optimize operational performance end-to-
end throughout the engineering, plant operations, and supply
chain management processes.

The company's EMEA operations is headquartered in the United
Kingdom.  AspenTech's Asia headquarters is located in China.  In
South America, the company has operations in Argentina, Brazil
and Venezuela.  The company also has operations in Mexico City
through AspenTech de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.


AT&T INC: Judge Decertifies Class in Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that AT&T Inc. won
a ruling from a Manhattan federal judge to decertify a class-
action lawsuit by more than 4,100 workers who complained AT&T's
mobile unit failed to properly pay wages and overtime
compensation.

In a decision made public on May 12, U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff said there was "an extremely wide variety of factual and
employment settings" among the plaintiffs, their managers and
retail stores.

He said this would effectively result in "over 4,000 mini-trials"
concerning the AT&T Mobility LLC unit.

The judge, nevertheless, denied AT&T Mobility's motion to dismiss
the case, saying the evidence suggests that some plaintiffs may be
able to recover damages.


AU OPTRONICS: Continues to Defend California Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
AU Optronics Corp. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit alleging antitrust violations, the Company
disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 20-F filing for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

There are also over 100 civil lawsuits filed against AUO and its
subsidiaries in the United States and several civil lawsuits in
Canada alleging, among other things, antitrust violations.  The
putative antitrust class actions filed in the United States have
been consolidated for discovery in the Northern California Court.
In the amended consolidated complaints, the plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an
enjoinment from the alleged antitrust conspiracy.  The Court has
issued an order certifying two types of classes that may proceed
against AUO and other TFT-LCD companies: direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers.  The civil actions are expected to be tried
in and after February 2012.

While the management intends to defend the suit vigorously, the
Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain, and
the amount of possible loss, if any, is currently not estimable.
Management is reviewing the merits of the lawsuit on an on-going
basis.

AUO is in the display business and solar business.  For its
Display Business, the Company designs, develops, manufactures,
assembles and markets flat panel displays and most of its products
are TFT-LCD panels.  For its Solar Business, the Company
manufactures polysilicon and solar wafer in Japan.  It designs,
develops, and manufactures solar photovoltaic (PV) modules as well
as produce solar PV systems and provide various value-added
services for solar PV systems projects.


AUSTRALIA: Supreme Court Judge Tosses Bushfire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Norrie Ross, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a Supreme Court
judge has criticized a Melbourne lawyer and his law firm after
throwing out a class action on May 13 over the 2003 Alpine
bushfires that destroyed a million hectares.

Justice Jack Forrest ruled the class action was an abuse of
process and was launched without the knowledge of the man named as
the lead plaintiff in the case.

The judge said the lawsuit was lodged in the Supreme Court in 2008
by Slidders Lawyers, now Oldham Naidoo, naming a man called Dr.
Hershall Cohen as the lead plaintiff.

Justice Forrest said it became clear that Dr. Cohen knew nothing
about his name being used in the lawsuit and successfully applied
to have it removed from the proceedings in October 2010.

Dr. Cohen never retained the law firm to act on his behalf.

"The issuing and maintenance of this claim in Dr Cohen's name was
a patent abuse of process by Oldham Naidoo," Justice Forrest said.

"The handling of the claim by Oldham Naidoo and (Daniel) Oldham
will be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner."

The Legal Services Commissioner has the power to take disciplinary
action against lawyers if a complaint is made out.

The lawsuit was launched against the State of Victoria, Parks
Victoria and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

The class action was based on a claim that the government and its
agencies failed to adequately backburn and reduce forest-floor
litter and this allowed bushfires to spread from the alpine state
parks into private property, causing massive losses.

In all class actions, a single plaintiff who represents the group
of plaintiffs has to be identified in the original writ and
statement of claim.

Justice Forrest said in his judgment that after Dr. Cohen was
removed as lead plaintiff, a Swiss-based businessman, Robert
Arnold, took his place in the lawsuit but he later withdrew.

The judge said this raised the novel consideration of what to do
with a representative or class action where no one is prepared to
be the representative plaintiff.

"There is no one prepared to take on the role," Justice Forrest
said.

"Not only in the space of eight years has no other person emerged
who will volunteer to be the representative plaintiff, no discrete
claim was issued by any group member prior to the expiry of the
limitation period."

"It is highly unlikely a lurking and hithertoo silent group member
will spring out of the alpine areas of northern Victoria and take
on the role of representative plaintiff."

Justice Forrest said it was a big step to dismiss a claim,
particularly a class action, but it has become "seriously and
unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging" to the defendants.

"Enough is enough," said the judge.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit related to student recruitment, the Company disclosed in
its May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In January 2011, Bridgepoint received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University
and University of the Rockies as defendants.  The complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on January 11, 2011, and is captioned Rosendahl v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that
the Company and the other defendants engaged in improper,
fraudulent and illegal behavior in their efforts to recruit and
retain students.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider
of postsecondary education services.  Its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Ashford University and the University of the
Rockies, are regionally accredited academic institutions that
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctoral programs in
the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social
sciences and health sciences.  These institutions deliver programs
online, as well as at their traditional campuses located in
Clinton, Iowa, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Stevens" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
purported class action lawsuit initiated by Stevens in California
over employee wages, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,
LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on
February 17, 2011, and is captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that the
plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were improperly denied
certain wage and hour protections under California law.  The
Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider
of postsecondary education services.  Its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Ashford University and the University of the
Rockies, are regionally accredited academic institutions that
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctoral programs in
the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social
sciences and health sciences.  These institutions deliver programs
online, as well as at their traditional campuses located in
Clinton, Iowa, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Wage-Related "Moore" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is defending itself against a
purported class action lawsuit initiated by Moore in California
over employee wages, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as
a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,
LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in San Diego on April 25, 2011, and is
captioned Moore v. Ashford University, LLC.  The complaint
generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections
under California law.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider
of postsecondary education services.  Its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Ashford University and the University of the
Rockies, are regionally accredited academic institutions that
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctoral programs in
the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social
sciences and health sciences.  These institutions deliver programs
online, as well as at their traditional campuses located in
Clinton, Iowa, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.


CBS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed
against CBS Corporation in New York is still pending, according to
the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law.  The complaint,
which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 26, 2008, and October 10,
2008, alleges that, among other things, the Company's failure to
timely write down the value of certain assets caused the Company's
reported operating results during the Class Period to be
materially inflated.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages.  On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on
behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees'
Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and Fire
Retirement System (collectively, the "Omaha Funds") seeking to
appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case; on
March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On May 4, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which removes the Treasurer
as a defendant and adds the Executive Chairman.  On July 13, 2009,
all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On
March 16, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed this action as to the Company and all defendants.  On
April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve
an amended complaint.  On September 23, 2010, the court issued an
order granting leave to amend.  On October 8, 2010, the Company
was served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the Class
Period to be April 29, 2008, to October 10, 2008 and alleges that
the impairment charge should have been taken during the first
quarter of 2008.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this
Amended Complaint on November 19, 2010.  The Company believes that
the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself in the litigation.


CENTEX CORP: 9th Cir. Hears Arguments in Subprime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that after the
subprime mortgage meltdown, developers misrepresented the risk of
buying new properties that had lost value, homeowners argued in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Sylvester Maya is the lead plaintiff of a class action
consolidated with seven others against Centex Corp. and related
entities.  The group appealed to the 9th Circuit after U.S.
District Judge Virginia Phillips dismissed their case for lack of
standing under the Class Action Fairness Act, finding that the
homeowners could not trace their alleged injuries to Centex.

Attorney for the homeowners Andrea Bierstein told a three-judge
panel on May 9 that her clients were "qualified buyers who did not
know the truth" that developers had sold homes in new developments
to people with poor credit in the subprime market, creating a
"sketchy" and "marginal" neighborhood full of lenders with a high
risk of losing their homes through foreclosure.

But the developers say that the homeowners have failed since
Day 1, the day they bought their homes, to show any injury.  Their
attorney, Nathaniel Garrett, Esq., pointed out May 9 that,
according to the suit itself, housing prices actually went up in
the few months after at least some of the plaintiffs bought their
homes.

If a person sold his home six months after buying it, in what the
plaintiffs referred to as a "hot market," for a profit of
$100,000, that person would not have standing to sue, Mr. Garrett
said.  But the injuries started to happen later, not on Day 1,
when the "foreclosures and short sales started to happen," he
said.

Ms. Bierstein disagreed.  If the homeowners had known on Day 1
that lots were being marketed to people who were not qualified to
own them and could never afford their mortgage payments, they
would have had the right to rescind the contracts, she argued.

The developers' actions also led the homeowners to overpay for the
property, Ms. Bierstein continued.  Though the developers say it
requires a complicated analysis to prove overpayment,
Ms. Bierstein says it is a "question of historical data on what
the risk premium was between stable and unstable neighborhoods."

It would be "unprecedented" for the court to "hold that a
defrauded purchaser lacks standing to sue its own seller,"
Ms. Bierstein said.

If someone bought a house on an undisclosed earthquake fault, that
person would have standing to sue, the attorney argued.  The
injuries suffered by the buyer are independent of the occurrence
of an earthquake, she said.

The homeowners' case revolves around the injuries they suffered
because of "misrepresentations and omissions," Ms. Bierstein
claimed, not the "unprecedented decline of the housing market or
growth of mortgage-backed securities or the subprime lending
market."

While developers advertised properties in traditional, "stable"
neighborhoods, they concealed that they were selling houses to
almost "anybody who wanted to buy one," Ms. Bierstein said.  The
defendants' omission of the fact that they were selling to high-
risk buyers is an "undisclosed material fact" that is "fundamental
to the case," she added.

Circuit Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas asked how the developers could
know that many of the buyers were not qualified for their loans
without invading their privacy.  Ms. Bierstein responded that the
developers knew the credit and income situations of the buyers
because they were building a development from scratch and had a
"captive mortgage company" that was extending 90% of the loans in
the developments.

If the developers simply remove identifying information during
discovery, the court can examine the records without invading
anyone's privacy, Ms. Bierstein suggested.

Sellers are required to disclose material facts to prospective
buyers when such facts will affect the value of a home, she added.
Failure to do so causes immediate injury.

Judge Thomas countered that "the representation of stability might
have been accurate at the time."  Subprime buyers have long
received credit in California, without problem as long as the
market continued to rise, he said.

Ms. Bierstein disagreed, arguing that the unqualified borrowers in
the defendants' developments were going to default on their loans
even if "the rest of the economy was rosy because they could not
afford their homes," which the defendants knew and the plaintiffs
did not.

The developers' attorney said the homeowners failed to show
causation because "not everybody who took a loan from the 8
biggest lenders in the country had their houses foreclosed."
Mr. Garrett also claimed it is not possible to disentangle all the
causes of the subprime housing market to determine damages owed to
each plaintiff.

It would be impossible to assign blame if a person living in a
risky neighborhood loses his job and can still afford to make
mortgage payments, but chooses to let his or her home go into
foreclosure because he is paying more for it than it is worth,
Mr. Garrett said.

A person cannot simply allege that they relied on a
misrepresentation and that is why they bought a home as a way of
proving standing, he concluded. Instead the person has to show
that the "content of the misrepresentation is why [the] value [of
the home] went down," Mr. Garrett said.




CHASE BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Check Loans
---------------------------------------------------------
Credit card customers who accepted a promotional offer from Chase
Bank for "life of the loan" low interest rates, but who were later
forced to assume new oppressive terms or accept higher interest
rates, had their case certified for class treatment on May 13 by
U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney in the Chase Bank
"Check Loan" Contract Litigation.

Lieff Cabraser attorney, Michael W. Sobol, counsel for plaintiffs
and the class, stated, "This is an excellent decision, not only
for the over 1 million Chase cardholders who were on the receiving
end of Chase's conduct, but also for the many millions of other
responsible consumers who everyday count on their banks and
lenders to act responsibly and in good faith."

Plaintiffs charge that Chase Bank lured them into accepting "check
loan" promotions offered with monthly credit card statements with
promises of permanent low interest rates, but when the Bank no
longer viewed the loans as profitable, it unilaterally changed the
deal.  Plaintiffs argued that Chase Bank targeted some of its most
responsible customers for the very reason that customers repaying
the check loans according to the original terms were no longer
viewed as sufficiently profitable.

In November 2008 and June 2009, Chase Bank raised the minimum
monthly payment from 2% to 5% of account balances for certain
targeted groups.  As an alternative to accepting the higher
minimum monthly payments, Chase Bank offered to keep the lower
minimum payments if customers agreed to higher interest rates
above the promotional rate.  Plaintiffs charge that Chase's intent
in sending such notices was to force cardholders to (a) accept
higher APR loans to maintain the 2% minimum payment requirement,
(b) make a late payment and trigger a penalty APR -- generally
29.99% -- and late fees, and/or (c) pay off or transfer the loans
to other available credit sources.

Plaintiffs sought certification of their claim for the breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Court found that
plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of class certification,
including that claims of the named plaintiffs were typical of
those of the class:

"Here, the claims of each named plaintiff and each class member
are based on the same conduct by Chase, specifically, Chase's
decision to change the terms of the subject loans, and rely on the
above-referenced common evidence to make similar, if not the same,
arguments in support of liability.  Such showing is sufficient to
demonstrate typicality, and Chase's arguments to the contrary are
not persuasive."

The Court certified the following class:

"All persons or entities in the United States who entered into a
loan agreement with Chase, whereby Chase promised a fixed APR
until the loan balance was paid in full, and (i) whose minimum
monthly payment was increased by Chase to 5% of the outstanding
balance, or (ii) who were notified by Chase of a minimum payment
increase and subsequently closed their account or agreed to an
alternative change in terms offered by Chase."


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Community
Health Systems, "the largest publicly traded operator of hospitals
in the United States," inflated its share price by overcharging
Medicare and other improper practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00451 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Stranch, III, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North
          Fourth Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: 615/254-8801
          E-mail: jims@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561/750-3000
          E-mail: DGeorge@rgrdlaw.com
                  RRobbins@rgrdlaw.com
                  jdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770/392-0090
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303/861-1764


DEL MONTE: Former Employees Mull Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Jones, writing for Sleepy Eye Herald-Dispatch, reports that
on Sept. 29, 2010, Yendi Trevino, Vanessa Quintanilla, Lydia Diaz,
Claudia Diaz, and Maria Diaz, current and former employees of Del
Monte filed suit against the company for overtime fees owed.

The accusing parties will be represented by:

          Antonio Tejeda, Esq.
          TEJEDA GUZMAN, PLLC
          214 4th St SW
          Willmar, MN 56201
          Telephone: 320-262-3669
          E-mail: info@tejeda-guzman.com

            - and -

          Troy A. Poetz, Esq.
          Gregory J. Haupert, Esq.
          RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER, LTD.
          11 Seventh Avenue North
          Daniel Building
          P.O. Box 1433
          St. Cloud, MN 56302-1433
          Telephone: 320-251-1055
          E-mail: tpoetz@rajhan.com
                  ghaupert@rajhan.com

            - and -

          William Moran, Esq.
          MURNANE BRANDT
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 3200
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-227-9411
          E-mail: wmoran@murnane.com

"We (the law firms) have worked together in the past on these
kinds of cases," said Troy Poetz.  "We work well together."

As Mr. Poetz explained it, the matter at hand in this case is a
period of about 15 minutes at the beginning of each day at
Del Monte, as well as a shorter period at the end of the day, over
a three year period.

These minutes in question were time spent by employees at a
trailer in the Del Monte parking lot, and then inside, donning
safety equipment for the work day.

"In our opinion, Del Monte made a conscious choice not to pay
employees for their time," Mr. Poetz said.

He explained that in his opinion, in 2005, the case IBP v. Alvarez
set precedent for this one, when the Supreme Court found IBP
responsible for paying employees during a similar situation at
their meat packing plant, where employees were required to don and
doff work equipment.

Mr. Poetz explained that due to employees working their full
shifts without these extra minutes, this would be counted as
overtime -- time and a half -- on their wages, and that employees
deserve to be compensated appropriately for all the days they
worked over that three-year period.

On April 31, letters were sent out to all current and previous
employees of Del Monte who worked during the three-year period in
question.  These letters invite employees to join the case, which
the acting judge -- Judge Susan Richard Nelson -- has opened up
for class action.

Those interested in joining the lawsuit have 90 days to do so.

"We're in the very early stages," Mr. Poetz explained.

After the 90-day period, parties from both sides will meet to
discuss settling.  Afterwards, the case will go to court.
Mr. Poetz explained that there is some concern about employees not
coming forward.

"I think a lot of them might be afraid to join this lawsuit,"
Mr. Poetz said.  He explained that Minnesota and Federal law
protect employees from repercussions from employers should they
step forward in a lawsuit.

Should employees not step forward, they will be unable to receive
any benefits of the case, if the ruling is in the prosecution's
favor.

"A group, by it's nature, has more power," Mr. Poetz said.

The law office of Littler Mendelson in Minneapolis, who is
representing Del Monte, declined to comment.


ELIOT HOUSE: Sued For Failing to Pay Interest on Security Deposits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Shpritz, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Eliot House Condominium Association,
et al., Case No. 2011-CH-17332 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 11,
2011), accuses the defendants of failing to pay interest on her
security deposit after her tenancy, in violation of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Chicago Municipal Code,
Chapter 5-12.

At all relevant times, Ms. Shpritz was a tenant of apartment #1008
and parking space located at 1255 N. Sandburg Terrace, in Chicago,
Illinois, owned by Karen Trimberger.

Defendants Eliot House Condominium Association and Chicagoland
Community Management, Inc., were the lessors of plaintiff's
dwelling unit during her tenancy.  Each also served as authorized
management and authorized agents of Karen Trimberger and the
building, which included plaintiff's dwelling unit.

On Feb. 25, 2010, Plaintiff gave defendants a total of $195 as
security deposit for her dwelling unit.

Plaintiff vacated her dwelling unit on February 18, 2011.  On
March 14, 2011, plaintiff received a check in the amount of $195
from defendants, representing the return of her security deposit,
without interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Krolik, Esq.
          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558-1978

               - and -

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015


EPSILON FMI: Sued for Exposing Confidential Information
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Epsilon FMI and Alliance Data Systems Corp. exposed to hackers
more than 50 million people's confidential information, including
customers of Best Buy, Tivo, JP Morgan Chase, Walgreen and dozens
of other companies.

A copy of the Complaint in Devine v. Epsilon FMI, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01823 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/hackers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Bousquet, Esq.
          9225 Katy Freeway #103
          Houston, TX 77024
          Telephone: (713) 827-8000


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated putative securities fraud class action in
Vermont is pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are
currently subject to a consolidated putative securities fraud
class action and a consolidated putative stockholder derivative
action, each pending in the United States Court for the District
of Vermont, and a putative stockholder derivative action pending
in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington
County.

The consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized
under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable
William K. Sessions, III.  The underlying complaints in the
consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its forward guidance.  The complaints include counts
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  The plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of
the Company's securities between July 28, 2010, and September 28,
2010, or September 29, 2010.  The complaints seek class
certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court
should deem just and proper.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3),
plaintiffs had until November 29, 2010, to move the court to serve
as lead plaintiff of the putative class.  On December 20, 2010,
the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M. Nichols, Jennifer M.
Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead plaintiffs and
approved their selection of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel and the Law
Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley, PLLC as liaison
counsel.  On December 29, 2010, and January 3, 2011, two of the
plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the consolidated
proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz, voluntarily
dismissed their cases without prejudice.  Pursuant to a stipulated
motion granted by the court on November 29, 2010, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 23, 2011,
and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on April 25, 2011.
Briefing on the motions to dismiss has not yet been completed.

The stockholder derivative actions consist of the following: a
consolidated action captioned Himmel v. Robert P. Stiller, et al.,
Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00233, pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III; and M. Elizabeth Dickenson v. Robert P. Stiller, et
al., Civ. No. 818-11-10, pending in the Superior Court of the
State of Vermont for Washington County.  The derivative complaints
are asserted nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of
its directors and officers and are premised on the same
allegations asserted in the putative securities class action
complaints.  The derivative complaints assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the
court should deem just and proper.  On November 29, 2010, the
federal court entered an order consolidating the two federal
actions and appointing the firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and Shuman
Law Firm as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On February 23, 2011,
the federal court approved a stipulation filed by the parties
providing for a temporary stay of that action until the court
rules on defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the putative securities fraud class action.  In the state
action, on February 28, 2011, the court approved a stipulation
filed by the parties similarly providing for a temporary stay of
that action until the federal court rules on defendants' motions
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the putative securities
fraud class action.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
the pending lawsuits.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at
this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they
may have on the Company or its operations.

Based in Waterbury, Vermont, Green Mountain manages its operations
through three operating segments, the Specialty Coffee business
unit, the Keurig business unit, and the Canadian business unit
created primarily from the recently acquired Van Houtte business.


GULF RESOURCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
June 28, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Gulf Resources, Inc. securities
from March 16, 2009, to April 26, 2011, to recover damages for
violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Gulf Resources class action, visit the firm's Web site
at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 28, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
The Hain Celestial Group misrepresents its "personal care
products" as organic.

A copy of the Complaint in Brown, et al. v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 11575336 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/Organic.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Howard Hirsch, Esq.
          Lisa Burger, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 759-4111
          E-mail: info@lexlawgroup.com


ILD TELESERVICES: Sued for Engaging in Billing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
ILD Teleservices "and hundreds of third-party service providers"
conspired to bill nearly 1 million customers falsely, using
"intentionally false affidavits and other documents."

A copy of the Complaint in Gold Seal Termite and Pest Control
Company v. ILD Telecommunications, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00642
(S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation continues to await a ruling on appeals
from the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to its
initial public offering, according to the Company's May 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The case is entitled In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999,
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants Informatica
Corporation, two of its former officers (together with the
Company, the "Informatica defendants"), and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April
29, 1999 initial public offering (IPO) and September 28, 2000
follow-on public offering.  The complaint alleges liability as to
all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for
the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had
agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the
offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the
underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.  The complaint also alleges that false
analyst reports were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more
than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the
Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.
The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Informatica
defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  Any
final settlement will require approval of the Court after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.

All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which, as
noted above, will not require the Company to contribute cash
unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement
exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  The Court gave
preliminary approval to the settlement on June 10, 2009, and gave
final approval on October 6, 2009.  Several objectors have filed
notices of appeals of the final judgment dismissing the cases upon
the settlement.


KOHl'S CORP: Removes "Whittenburg" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Whittenburg, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Kohl's Corporation, et al., Case No.
CGC-11-508838 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed
on March 4, 2011.  The plaintiff accuses Kohl of requesting and
recording personal identification information from customers using
credit cards at the point-of-sale in defendant's retail
establishments, a practice that is prohibited under the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code section
1747.08.

Mr. Whittenburg is a resident of California, and entered into a
retail transaction with defendant at one of defendant's stores
located in California.

Defendant operates retail stores under the name Kohl's throughout
the United States, including California.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, on May 11, 2011, the
lawsuit was removed to the Northern District of California, and
the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02320 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          A Professional Corporation
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          Scott R. Hatch, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN
          A Professional Corporation
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: morr@calljensen.com
                  shatch@calljensen.com


LG DISPLAY: Trial in U.S. Antitrust Suits Set for February 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of two lawsuits in the U.S. alleging violations of
antitrust laws against LG Display Co., Ltd. has been scheduled for
Feb. 12, 2012, the Company disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2006, LG Display received notices of investigation by
the Korea Fair Trade Commission, the Japan Fair Trade Commission,
the U.S. Department of Justice, and the European Commission with
respect to possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD
industry.  LG Display subsequently received similar notices from
the Canadian Competition Bureau and the Taiwan Fair Trade
Commission.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display, LG Display America, Inc., and other TFT-LCD
panel manufacturers in the United States and Canada, alleging
violation of respective antitrust laws and related laws.  In a
series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in
the United States were transferred to the Northern District of
California for pretrial proceedings -- the MDL Proceedings.  On
March 28, 2010, the federal district court granted the class
certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
and granted in part and denied in part the class certification
motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.  In June 2010,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the defendants'
petitions appealing the class certification decisions.  In
January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated
entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct
purchaser class.  The time period for submitting requests for
exclusion from the indirect purchaser class has not yet begun.
Trial is set to begin in the two class action lawsuits on
February 13, 2012.

Class certification in Canada remains pending.  In January 2011, a
hearing was held regarding the Canadian direct and indirect
purchasers' motion for class certification.  The court has not yet
ruled on the motion.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and
other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.


LG DISPLAY: Gets Final Approval of Shareholder Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court granted final approval of a class settlement LG
Display Co., Ltd. negotiated in a shareholder class action related
to LCD pricing, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In February 2007, LG Display and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violation of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit allegations were
related to anti-competitive practices in LCD pricing.  In May
2010, the defendants, including LG Display, reached an agreement
in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the action.  A
fairness hearing was held on March 17, 2011, and the district
court granted final approval of the settlement.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and
other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.


MASTER-EXTERIORS LLC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Andresen, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Master-Exteriors, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-17237 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 10, 2011), accuses Master-Exteriors of
sending unsolicited fax advertisements to his fax machine, a
practice that is expressly prohibited under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA).

Plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.

Defendant, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business located in Illinois, does business as Roof-Masters, a
roofing contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440


MEDIFAST INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Medifast, Inc., are reminded of the securities
class action lawsuit against Medifast and certain of its officers.
The class action (No. 11 Civ 0720), pending in the District of
Maryland, is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Medifast securities during the
period from March 4, 2010, through and including March 10, 2011.
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Medifast securities during
the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until May 17, 2011, to ask the Court to appoint
you.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact:

          Rachelle R. Boyle
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
          E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com

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

Medifast is a Maryland corporation that combines physician-
supervised weight loss programs with nutritional supplements and
multidisciplinary patient education programs.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company was improperly recognizing certain expenses; (2) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
results were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 11, 2011, the Company disclosed that it would be forced
to delay the filing of its fiscal 2010 financial results and its
Annual Report.  According to the limited information provided by
the Company regarding the delay, Medifast requires additional time
to complete its year-end financial statements due to the need to
review the recognition of certain expenses in prior periods.  On
this news, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per share, or more than
24%, to close at $16.63 per share.

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


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Illegal Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------
Sherene Tagharobi, writing for WILX.com, reports that hundreds of
homeowners, just in Ingham County, have been illegally foreclosed
upon, according to the Court of Appeals.

Nick Reeser's love for his grandma is written all over him.

"Grandma was a huge tigers fan, this is a tribute to her," he
said, pointing to a still-healing "D" tattoo on his leg.

When she died just weeks ago, she left him her house.  So he went
to the Register of Deeds' office to get a copy of the deed and
mortgage.

"He finds out when he got here there had been a foreclosure on his
grandmother's house the last few months before she passed away,"
said Curtis Hertel, Ingham County Register of Deeds.

"Nobody was notified, my grandma was in no mental or physical
state to make decisions on it," said Mr. Reeser.

To make matters worse, it was a the Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems (MERS) foreclosure, one of 469 just in Ingham
County deemed illegal by the Court of Appeals.

"MERS did not own the note, they were in the chain of title but
you need to have both to foreclose by advertisement," said
Attorney Brian Dailey.

Mr. Dailey has filed a class action law suit against MERS, saying
its crimes are many.

"Violating people's rights, trespassing on their property, taking
their property when they shouldn't be," he said.

"Do you blame the company the banks hired to do this or do you
blame the banks that decided it was easier to hire a company to do
all these things instead of doing it themselves?" asked
Mr. Hertel.  "There are a lot of people who are working on
modifications who are doing everything they could to keep their
home and had the rugged ripped out from underneath them.  The
majority of these people were foreclosed on in 2009 and have
already lost their home."

Lucky for Mr. Reeser, there's still a chance to save his, if he
can sort through the mess of documents and all the legalities.

"See all this really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me," he
said, sifting through mounds of paperwork.

And hundreds, maybe thousands more like him, have no idea their
foreclosures were illegitimate.  They're hard to get in touch
with, as you can imagine, so the Register of Deeds is asking
polling companies for help tracking down any new addresses.  That
will only work if people have registered to vote with their new
addresses.

"If we don't get a new address we're going to send it to the old
and hope it forwards," Mr. Hertel said.


NABOR INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Superior Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit in Pennsylvania related to its acquisition of Superior
Well Services, Inc., according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company acquired Superior Well on September 10, 2010.
Superior provides a wide range of wellsite solutions to oil and
natural gas companies, consisting primarily of technical pumping
services.

In August 2010, Nabors and its wholly owned subsidiary, Diamond
Acquisition Corp. were sued in three putative shareholder class
actions.  Two of the cases were dismissed.  The remaining case,
Jordan Denney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. David E. Wallace, et al., Civil Action No. 10-1154, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  The suits were brought against
Superior, the individual members of its board of directors,
certain of Superior's senior officers, Nabors and Diamond.  The
complaints alleged that Superior's officers and directors violated
various provisions of the Exchange Act and breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Superior acquisition, and
that Nabors and Diamond aided and abetted these violations.  The
complaints sought injunctive relief, including an injunction
against the consummation of the Superior acquisition, monetary
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.  The claim against
Superior and its directors is covered by insurance after a
deductible amount.

The Company anticipates settling the claims in 2011, and that any
settlement will be funded by Superior's insurers to the extent it
exceeds the Company's deductible.

Nabors is a land drilling contractor and one of the largest land
well-servicing and workover contractors in the United States and
Canada.  The Company is also leading provider of offshore platform
workover and drilling rigs, and actively market 38 platform, 13
jackup and three barge rigs in the United States, including the
Gulf of Mexico, and multiple international markets.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Board Refuses Demands Arising From Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrisystem, Inc.'s Board of Directors has refused demands made by
a shareholder to sue the Company's managers over allegations
raised in a consolidated class action lawsuit that was dismissed,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Commencing on October 9, 2007, several putative class action suits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania naming Nutrisystem, Inc., and certain of
its officers and directors as defendants and alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 14, 2007, and October 3, 2007, or October 4, 2007.  The
complaints alleged that the defendants issued various materially
false and misleading statements relating to the Company's
projected performance that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of its securities.
These actions were consolidated in December 2007 under docket
number 07-4215, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on
March 7, 2008, that raised the same claims but alleged a class
period of February 14, 2007, through February 19, 2008.  The
consolidated amended complaint asked the court to (1) certify a
class, (2) award compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses and (3) grant such other and further relief as the court
deemed just and proper.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on May 6, 2008, that was granted by the Court on August 31, 2009.
On September 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on
May 19, 2010, upon motion by the plaintiff/appellant, the appeal
was dismissed with prejudice without costs to either party.  The
dismissal is final.

On April 27, 2010, counsel for a shareholder sent a letter
relating to the same events that form the bases of the federal
putative class action.  Specifically, the shareholder has
demanded, pursuant to Delaware Chancery Court Rule 23.1, that the
Board of Directors (1) undertake (or cause to be undertaken) an
independent internal investigation into violations of Delaware law
committed by Company management during the time periods and (2)
commence a civil action against each member of management to
recover for the benefit of the Company the amount of damages
sustained by the Company as a result of their breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The Board of Directors appointed a special
committee consisting of three independent directors to investigate
this demand.  The special committee engaged independent legal
counsel to assist it in this investigation.  In April 2011, the
special committee, with the assistance of independent legal
counsel, completed its investigation and delivered to the Board of
Directors the special committee's recommendation that the Company
refuse the demands made in the shareholder's letter.  At its April
2011 meeting, the Board of Directors, after deliberation and
discussion, unanimously determined to accept the special
committee's recommendation as in the best interests of the Company
and its stockholders.  Promptly thereafter, the special
committee's counsel delivered to the shareholder's counsel a
letter informing counsel of the Board of Directors' actions and
the Company's decision to refuse the shareholder's demands.


NVR INC: Wage Suits Still Stayed Pending Development in NY Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits filed against NVR, Inc., in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been
stayed pending further developments in a similar purported class
action in New York, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The suits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class.  The lawsuits filed in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have
been stayed pending further developments in the New York action.

NVR Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- operates in two business
segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking.  The homebuilding
unit sells and constructs homes under the Ryan Homes, NVHomes and
Fox Ridge Homes trade names.  NVR Mortgage provides a variety of
financing programs, while settlement and title services for buyers
of NVR homes are provided by NVR Settlement Services.


OHIO EDISON: Appeal from Dismissal of Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed
against Ohio Edison Company remains pending, according to the
Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Corp., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio Edison seeking
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a
class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had
previously been in place for residential customers with electric
heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.  The
reduction in the discount was approved by the PUCO.  In March
2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the
case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas.
The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010.  The
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
which has not yet rendered an opinion.


PEOPLES ENERGY: Tetzlaff Seeks Dismissal of Malpractice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Corfman, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports
that Chicago attorney Theodore Tetzlaff, Esq., is firing back at
Peoples Energy Corp.

The utility's malpractice suit, filed in December against
Mr. Tetzlaff and claiming the destruction of evidence in a
malpractice case, should be thrown out because Peoples omits a key
fact: The documents shredded were actually copies, Mr. Tetzlaff's
lawyers are contending.

Peoples "admitted that no original documents were destroyed and
that copies of the documents at issue were available from multiple
other sources," according to a court filing by attorney Stephen
Novack, who represents Mr. Tetzlaff and his firm, Ungaretti &
Harris LLP.  "No harm, no foul."

A Peoples spokeswoman declined to comment.

Peoples sued Mr. Tetzlaff and Ungaretti in December for
malpractice in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging the
destruction of 16 boxes of documents in violation of a court order
in a class-action case in which they were represented by
Mr. Tetzlaff and Ungaretti.  The destruction forced the utility to
pay roughly $4 million more to settle the lawsuit than Peoples
would have paid if the documents had not been destroyed, the
utility alleged.  The case was settled for $8.8 million last year.

Ironically, the class-action case, filed in 2004, involved
allegations that Peoples improperly profited in its dealings with
Enron Corp., whose name became synonymous with corporate
shredding.

"Nothing was done for the purpose of covering up evidence or
hiding any documents, and nobody has contended otherwise,"
Mr. Novack, a partner in Chicago law firm Novack & Macey LLP, said
in an interview.

Mr. Tetzlaff was Peoples' general counsel from 2003 until December
2006, when he resigned.  As the utility's top lawyer, he retained
his position with an outside law firm, currently Chicago-based
Ungaretti.

In mid-2006, while the class-action case was still pending, a
Wisconsin utility announced plans to merge with Peoples, forming
Integrys Energy Group Inc.  The deal closed in February 2007.

In July 2008, the Chicago office of law firm Foley & Lardner LLP
took over as Peoples' lead counsel in the class-action case.

Foley discovered the document destruction in December 2009, the
complaint said.

Only six of the 16 boxes of destroyed documents contained
corporate documents.  Peoples could show that all of those
documents were turned over to attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
class action case except for 20 pages, according to a memorandum
in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Those 20 pages also were turned over, Peoples contended in the
class-action suit, but the company had no records to prove it,
Mr. Tetzlaff and Peoples contend.

The remaining 10 boxes contained filings by Peoples with the
Illinois Commerce Commission.  In the class-action case, Peoples
said that the document destruction caused no permanent harm
because those records were also available from other entities,
such as the commission, the Illinois Attorney General, and the
city of Chicago, according to the memorandum.

In the malpractice case, Peoples doesn't dispute that no original
documents were destroyed.

Instead, the company now says its defense to the class-action case
was hurt because it could not identify which documents were
destroyed.

The plaintiffs' counsel in the class action asked the trial judge
to impose sanctions on Peoples because of the document
destruction, but the motion was never decided.

Peoples now contends that in 2008, before the document issue
arose, the case could have been settled for $4.5 million, citing
an analysis by Ungaretti.  In August 2009, the class-action
plaintiffs demanded $8 million to settle the case, and about one
year later increased that demand to $14 million, which Peoples
blames on the document issue.

But in November 2009, a Cook County Circuit Court judge certified
the class-action case, Mr. Tetzlaff and Ungaretti noted in their
memorandum.  The ruling greatly expanded the number of people
eligible for any recovery, and may have prompted the plaintiffs to
up their demand to settle the case.

Mr. Tetzlaff's lawyer may be reached at:

          Stephen Novack, Esq.
          NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606-1501
          Telephone: 312-419-6900
          E-mail: snovack@novackmacey.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued for Collecting Debts While Unlicensed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Galasso, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
2011-CH-17185 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 10, 2011), seeks
redress for the conduct of defendant in taking collection actions
prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency Act.  Count I seeks
relief against void judgments.  Counts II and III allege violation
of the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq.
(ICAA).  Count IV alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (ICFA).

Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associate, 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
May 8, 2008.

Between January 1, 2008, and May 8, 2008, defendant instituted
lawsuits against more than 100 Illinois consumers, and also
collected money from other Illinois consumers.  According to the
plaintiff, each judgment and order obtained by defendant in cases
filed during this period, is void.

Plaintiff relates that on February 6, 2008, while unlicensed,
defendant filed a lawsuit against her in the Circuit Court of Cook
County to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or
household purposes, with Case No. 2008 M1 109626.  On March 25,
2008, while still unlicensed, defendant obtained judgment against
the plaintiff, for which money has been collected.

Ms. Galasso is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is a "collection
agency" subject to the ICAA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Recalls 1,000 PlayBook Tablets With Faulty OS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Weinberg at MarketWatch reports that BlackBerry maker
Research In Motion Ltd. has recalled about 1,000 of its PlayBook
tablets that were shipped with faulty operating systems that may
have prevented users from performing the initial setup of the
device.

In a statement, RIM said the majority of the affected devices are
still in the distribution channel and haven't reached customers.
"RIM is working to replace the affected devices," the statement
said.  "In the small number of cases where a customer received a
PlayBook that is unable to properly load software upon initial
set-up, they can contact RIM for assistance."

The statement followed a report on the Engadget blog on May 14,
2011, that said the faulty batch of PlayBooks were shipped to
Staples.  The blog didn't identify whether the Staples stores that
received the recalled devices were in Canada or the U.S.

Officials from Staples weren't immediately available.

The news is the latest setback for RIM, which recently issued a
first-quarter profit warning, citing lower-than-expected
BlackBerry sales.  RIM's stock breached its 52-week low in Toronto
and is hovering just above its 52-week low of $42.53 on Nasdaq.

The Waterloo, Ont. company is transitioning to new products that
it hopes spark a turnaround in sales and revitalize its image.
The highly-anticipated PlayBook launched to lukewarm reviews last
month.  The device features a new operating system from QNX
Software Systems, which RIM acquired last year.  It also features
Adobe Inc.'s Flash software.  However, it has a relative dearth of
third-party applications, which are a key reason for the success
of Apple Inc.'s iPad.

RIM hasn't yet indicated how many PlayBooks it has sold to date.
It is expected to provide this information when it reports its
results in June.


SEQUENOM INC: Continues to Await Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sequenom, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on the appeal from the
settlement of its IPO securities litigation, according to the
Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2011.

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (now
captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation) Case No.
01-CV-10831.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company's underwriters, certain of the Company's officers and
directors and the Company violated the federal securities laws
because its registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation
practices of the underwriters.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  Similar complaints were filed
in the same District Court against hundreds of other public
companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common
stock in the late 1990s and 2000 (the IPO Cases).
In October 2002, the Company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.  In February 2003, the
District Court dismissed the claim against the Company brought
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, without giving the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to that
claim.  The District Court declined to dismiss the claim against
the Company brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act).

In September 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's board of directors, the
Company approved in principle a settlement offer by the
plaintiffs.  In September 2004, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.  In February 2005, the
District Court issued a decision certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.  In August 2005, the District
Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of
the modified settlement.  In December 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's
decision certifying as class actions the six lawsuits designated
as "focus cases."  Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay
of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of
plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc.
In April 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing
petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court.  Accordingly, the
settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to the
stipulation.

In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
District Court that a new settlement of all IPO Cases had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the District Court.  In
April 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement
to the District Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.
In June 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members.  In September 2009, the
District Court held a final fairness hearing.  In October 2009,
the District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case
and granted final approval to the settlement.  Thereafter, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class
Certification Order, asserting that the District Court's
certification of the settlement classes violates the Second
Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO Cases
and a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting
to final approval of the settlement.  If the settlement is
affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of
all claims against the Company and its officers and directors with
prejudice, and its pro rata share of the settlement fund will be
fully funded by insurance.


SIRIUS XM: Expects Trial in "Blessing" Suit to be Set This Summer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in a class action lawsuit captioned Carl Blessing et al.
v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. is expected to be scheduled for this
summer, according to the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

A subscriber, Carl Blessing, filed a lawsuit against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Mr. Blessing's lawsuit has been consolidated with
substantially identical lawsuits brought by other subscribers.
Mr. Blessing and 23 other plaintiffs purport to represent all
subscribers who were subject to: (Dollar amounts in thousands,
unless otherwise stated) an increase in the price for additional-
radio subscriptions from $6.99 to $8.99; the imposition of the US
Music Royalty Fee; and the elimination of the Company's free
streaming internet service.  Based on these pricing changes, the
suit raises four claims.  First, the suit claims the pricing
changes show that the Merger lessened competition or led to a
monopoly in violation of the Clayton Act.  Second, it claims that,
for the same reason, the Merger led to monopolization in violation
of the Sherman Act.  Third, it claims that the Company's
subscriber service agreement misrepresents that the US Music
Royalty Fee will be used exclusively to defray increases in
royalty costs incurred since the filing of the merger application
with the FCC (and as permitted by the FCC order) in violation of
the consumer protection and unfair trade practice laws of 41
states and the District of Columbia.  A fourth claim -- that the
alleged misrepresentation violates the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing that the Company owes its subscribers under New
York contract law -- has been dismissed by the court.  The
complaint seeks monetary damages as well as treble damages under
the Clayton Act.

In March 2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that its subscriber
service agreement misrepresents that the US Music Royalty Fee will
be used exclusively to defray increases in royalty costs incurred
since the filing of the merger application with the FCC (and as
permitted by the FCC order) in violation of the consumer
protection and unfair trade practice laws of 41 states and the
District of Columbia.  At the same time, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion to certify as a class action, and denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment, the remaining claims that
the Merger lessened competition, or led to a monopoly, in
violation of the Clayton Act and led to monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act.  A trial in this matter is expected
to be scheduled for this summer.  The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit and it is vigorously
defending itself in this litigation.

                      About Sirius XM Radio

Based in New York, Sirius XM Radio Inc. has two principal wholly
owned subsidiaries, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Satellite
CD Radio Inc.  XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. owns XM Satellite
Radio Inc., the operating company for the XM satellite radio
service.  Satellite CD Radio Inc. owns the Federal Communications
Commission license associated with the SIRIUS satellite radio
service.  XM Satellite Radio Inc. owns XM Radio Inc., the holder
of the FCC license associated with the XM satellite radio service.

In July 2008, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Vernon Merger
Corporation, merged with and into XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.
and, as a result, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. became Sirius'
wholly owned subsidiary.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Class Action in South Carolina Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by the City of Ann Arbor Employees'
Retirement System against Sonoco Products Company is still pending
in South Carolina, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 3, 2011.

On July 7, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for South Carolina by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated.  The lawsuit is a class action on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2007, and September 18, 2007, except officers and
directors of the Company.  The complaint, as amended, alleges that
the Company issued press releases and made public statements
during the class period that were materially false and misleading.
The complaint also names certain Company officers as defendants
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the suit.

Founded in 1899, Sonoco Products Co. --
http://http://www.sonoco.com/-- is a $3.6 billion global
manufacturer of industrial and consumer products and provider of
packaging services, with more than 300 operations in 35 countries,
serving customers in some 85 nations.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend itself from
purported class action complaints filed in connection with
Community Health Systems Inc.'s proposal to acquire its shares,
according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2010, the Company received an unsolicited proposal
from Community Health Systems, Inc., to acquire all its
outstanding shares for $6.00 per share in cash and stock.  The
Company's board of directors, after carefully evaluating the
proposal made by Community and after consultation with its
financial and legal advisors, unanimously determined that
Community's proposal was not in the best interests of the Company
or its shareholders.  In January 2011, Community nominated 10
candidates for election to the Company's board of directors at its
2011 annual meeting of shareholders.

In December 2010 and January 2011, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against the Company and its board of
directors, each ostensibly brought on behalf of all Tenet
shareholders who allegedly have been or will be harmed by the
actions or inactions of the board of directors in response to
Community's proposal.  One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the
Second Judicial Court in the State of Nevada in March 2011.  The
complaints in the remaining actions generally allege that the
members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by their actions and inactions in response to Community's proposal
and that the Company aided and abetted the actions of the
individual directors.  In general, each of the plaintiffs seeks
injunctive relief prohibiting the Company and its board of
directors from implementing defensive measures, such as poison
pills, in response to Community's proposal, seeks rescission of
defensive measures already adopted, or both.  The Company and its
board of directors believe that each of these actions is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.


TENET HEALTHCARE: To Seek OK of "Katrina" Suit Settlement in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. will seek preliminary court approval in
early July to settle two class action lawsuits filed against the
Company alleging hospital negligence during, and in the wake of,
Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On March 23, 2011, following the commencement of trial proceedings
in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the Company
agreed to settle two class action lawsuits brought on behalf of
patients, their family members and others who were present and
allegedly injured at Memorial Medical Center, one of the Company's
former New Orleans area hospitals, during Hurricane Katrina and
its aftermath.  A $25 million cash settlement payment, which is
fully reserved for as of March 31, 2011, will be apportioned among
the approximately 1,400 eligible class members who file a proof of
claim in the cases.  The Company anticipates the parties will
execute a final settlement agreement by early June 2011 and will
submit it to the court for preliminary approval in early July
2011.  Following the court's preliminary approval, the settlement
will be subject to a fairness hearing with class members and final
review by the court.

Approximately 50 potential class members chose to opt out of the
class proceedings in the two aforementioned cases; most of them
had previously filed their own separate lawsuits.  As of March 31,
2011, trial dates had not been set in these individual matters.
In addition, a third previously reported purported class action
lawsuit (also filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans) remains pending.  The class certification hearing in that
action, which was brought on behalf of patients, their family
members and others who were present and allegedly injured
following Hurricane Katrina at Lindy Boggs Medical Center, one of
the Company's former New Orleans area hospitals, was postponed in
late 2010 and has not yet been rescheduled.

Furthermore, 22 individual Hurricane Katrina-related lawsuits
remain pending against Lindy Boggs and two other New Orleans-area
hospitals that the Company has since divested -- Meadowcrest
Hospital and Kenner Regional Medical Center.  In general, the
plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in failing to
properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate patients ahead
of the storm, and failing to have properly configured emergency
generator systems, among other allegations of general negligence.
The plaintiffs seek damages in various and unspecified amounts for
the alleged wrongful death of some patients, aggravation of pre-
existing illnesses or injuries to patients who survived and were
successfully evacuated, and the inability of patients and others
to evacuate the hospitals for several days under challenging
conditions.  The Company is unable to predict the ultimate
resolution of the pending lawsuits, but it intends to continue to
vigorously defend the hospitals in these matters.


UNITEDHEALTH: Class Action Lawsuits in Florida Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits filed by health care providers in Florida,
according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company by health care providers alleging various
claims relating to the Company's reimbursement practices,
including alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) and state prompt payment laws and breach
of contract claims.  Many of these lawsuits were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Southern District Court of Florida (MDL).  In the lead MDL
lawsuit, the court certified a class of health care providers for
certain of the RICO claims.  In 2006, the trial court dismissed
all of the claims against the Company in the lead MDL lawsuit, and
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed that
dismissal, leaving eleven related lawsuits that had been stayed
during the litigation of the lead MDL lawsuit.  In August 2008,
the trial court, applying its rulings in the lead MDL lawsuit,
dismissed seven of these lawsuits (the seven lawsuits).  The trial
court also dismissed all but one claim in an eighth lawsuit, and
ordered the final claim to arbitration.  In December 2008, at the
plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed without prejudice
one of the three remaining lawsuits.  The court also denied the
plaintiffs' request to remand the remaining two lawsuits to state
court and a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of
those suits.  In April 2009, the plaintiffs in these last two
suits filed amended class action complaints alleging breach of
contract, but those amended complaints were subsequently dismissed
without prejudice.  In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit reversed
the trial court's dismissal of the seven lawsuits and remanded
those cases to the trial court for further proceedings.  In
addition, the Company is party to a number of arbitrations in
various jurisdictions involving claims similar to those alleged in
the seven lawsuits.  The Company is vigorously defending against
the remaining claims in these cases.


UNITED PARCEL: Decertification Decision in "Marlo" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., disclosed in its May 5, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, that the
decertification decision in Marlo v. UPS was upheld by an appeals
court on April 28, 2011.

UPS is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and
federal courts containing various class action allegations under
state wage-and-hour laws.  In one of these cases, Marlo v. UPS,
which was certified as a class action in a California federal
court in September 2004, plaintiffs allege that they improperly
were denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of 1,300 full-time supervisors.  In August 2005,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims,
and plaintiffs appealed the ruling.  In October 2007, the appeals
court reversed the lower court's ruling.  In April 2008, the court
decertified the class and plaintiffs appealed.  After
decertification and while the appeal was pending, some plaintiffs
filed individual lawsuits raising the same allegations as in the
underlying class action.  These individual lawsuits are in various
stages.  On April 28, 2011, the appeals court upheld the
decertification decision.  The Company has denied any liability
with respect to these claims and intends to vigorously defend
itself in these cases.  At this time, the Company has not
determined the amount of any liability that may result from these
matters or whether such liability, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Suits Over Rebranding
--------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various lawsuits filed by its franchisees over rebranding,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

UPS and its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., are defendants in
various lawsuits brought by franchisees who operate Mail Boxes
Etc. centers and The UPS Store locations.  These lawsuits relate
to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc. centers to The UPS Store, The
UPS Store business model, the representations made in connection
with the rebranding and the sale of The UPS Store franchises, and
UPS' sale of services in the franchisees' territories.  In one of
the actions, which is pending in California state court, the court
certified a class consisting of all Mail Boxes Etc. branded stores
that rebranded to The UPS Store in March 2003.  The Company has
denied any liability with respect to these claims and intends to
defend itself vigorously. At this time, the Company has not
determined the amount of any liability that may result from these
matters or whether such liability, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend "Barber" Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit pending in Alabama, according to the
Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

In Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS' assessment of
shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the
"dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the
shipper.  The Company has denied any liability with respect to
these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.
At this time, the Company has not determined the amount of any
liability that may result from this matter or whether such
liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. United Parcel Service, Inc., was not
named in this case. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as
defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60
defendants named in the amended complaint. The Company intends to
vigorously defend ourselves in this case. At this time, the
Company has not determined the amount of any liability that may
result from these matters or whether such liability, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Class Action Settlement Gets Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at The Blog of Legal Times posted by Mike
Scarcella, a federal judge on May 13 granted preliminary approval
of the $1.25 billion class action settlement involving allegations
of discrimination against black farmers.

Lawyers involved in the case in Washington federal district court
said in court papers the settlement, which required congressional
approval of the funding, is the culmination of nearly three years
of litigation and extensive negotiation between the parties.

The tens of thousands of potential class members are black farmers
who allege they were victims of U.S. Department of Agriculture
loan discrimination but who did not have their claims resolved in
an earlier suit.

The plaintiffs "believe this settlement is a landmark achievement
in the struggle for civil rights in the United States, and a
fitting end of the path toward justice carved by this court in
Pigford more than a decade ago," the plaintiffs' attorneys said in
court papers filed in March.

Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on May 13 granted preliminary approval and set a fairness
hearing for Sept. 1.  Judge Friedman identified three lawyers as
lead class counsel:

          Andrew H. Marks, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2595
          Telephone: 202-624-2500
          E-mail: amarks@crowell.com

                  - and -

          Henry Sanders, Esq.
          CHESTNUT, SANDERS, SANDERS,
          PETTAWAY & CAMPBELL, L.L.C.
          One Union Street
          Selma, AL 36702
          Telephone: (334) 875-9264

                  - and -

          Gregorio A. Francis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue
          10th Floor, P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: 877-667-4265

"We are obviously very pleased," said Mr. Marks, a partner in the
firm's litigation and insurance groups.  "It's been a long time to
get to this point."

Mr. Marks continued: "The end result is to get the settlement
finally approved so that the farmers who have been waiting
decades, in some cases, can have their claims heard.  Many of
these farmers are old and dying and we want to get them
compensation, where there's been discrimination, for the wrongs
they suffered."

The settlement calls for a range of legal fees between 4.1% and
7.4% (about $51 million to $92.5 million) of the $1.25 billion
that Congress appropriated to implement the deal.  Judge Friedman
will have the final say on a reasonable fee.


VESTAS WIND: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on May 13 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of Vestas Wind Systems
A/S American Depository Shares who purchased their ADRs between
October 27, 2009, and October 25, 2010, inclusive.  Specifically,
the lawsuit alleges that, among other things, the Company
improperly accounted for its revenue in violation of International
Accounting Standards by failing to timely adopt the International
Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's Interpretation 15
throughout the Class Period.

If you purchased Vestas ADRs during the Class Period, you have the
legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than May 17, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you are a Vestas investor and would like to discuss a potential
lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with
respect to the lawsuit, you may contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


WILLIAMS COS: Expects Trial on 2nd Claim in Royalty Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., is anticipating trial on the second
reserved claim in a class action lawsuit related to royalty
payments following resolution of the first reserved claim,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County Colorado, alleging the Company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that
the Company received from the sale of natural gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to
refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.
Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class of royalty interest
owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected
payments resulting from calculation errors.  The Company entered
into a final partial settlement agreement.  The partial settlement
agreement defined the class members for class certification,
reserved two claims for court resolution, resolved all other class
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, and established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments.  This settlement resolved
all claims relating to past withholding for ad valorem tax
payments and established a procedure for refunds of any such
excess withholding in the future.  The first reserved claim is
whether the Company is entitled to deduct in its calculation of
royalty payments a portion of the costs the Company incur beyond
the tailgates of the treating or processing plants for mainline
pipeline transportation.  The Company received a favorable ruling
on its motion for summary judgment on the first reserved claim.
Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the Colorado Court of Appeals
found in its favor in April 2011. The Company anticipates knowing
later in 2011 whether plaintiffs will pursue any further appeal on
the first reserved claim.  The second reserved claim relates to
whether the Company is required to have proportionately increased
the value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether the Company did so
and are thus entitled to deduct a proportionate share of
transportation costs in calculating royalty payments.  The Company
anticipates trial on the second reserved claim following
resolution of the first reserved claim.  The Company believes its
royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance
with the appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law.
At this time, the plaintiffs have not provided the Company a
sufficient framework to calculate an estimated range of exposure
related to their claims.  However, it is reasonably possible that
the ultimate resolution of this item could result in a future
charge that may be material to its results of operations.


WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas, according to the Company's May 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the Company and others, in
each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  The Company
is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other
litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas in those states.  These cases were
transferred to the federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court
granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the
Company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack
of standing.  On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered
judgment in its favor.  The Company expects that the Colorado
plaintiffs will appeal, but the appeal cannot occur until the case
against the remaining defendant is concluded.

In the other cases, the Company's joint motions for summary
judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims based upon
federal preemption have been pending since late 2009.  If the
motions are granted, the Company expects a final judgment in its
favor which the plaintiffs could appeal.  If the motions are
denied, the current stay of activity would be lifted, class
certification would be addressed, and discovery would be completed
as the cases proceed towards trial.  Because of the uncertainty
around these current pending unresolved issues, including an
insufficient description of the purported classes and other
related matters, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures at this time.  However, it is reasonably
possible that the ultimate resolution of these items could result
in future charges that may be material to the Company's results of
operations.


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: "Downes" Suit Vs. Pension Plan Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Electric Power Company disclosed in its May 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, that its Cash
Balance Pension Plan remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending in a Wisconsin federal court.

In June 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the Company's Cash Balance Pension Plan in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Counsel
representing the plaintiff has sought class certification for
other similarly situated plaintiffs.  The complaint alleges that
Plan participants who received a lump sum distribution under the
Plan prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full
benefit to which they were entitled in violation of ERISA and are
owed additional benefits, because the Plan failed to apply the
correct interest crediting rate to project the cash balance
account to their normal retirement age.  In September 2010, the
plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint alleging
additional claims under ERISA and adding Wisconsin Energy as a
defendant.  The plaintiff has not specified the amount of relief
he is seeking.

In March 2011, after the matter was addressed by the Plan's
Employee Benefits Committee and following the Committee's review
and analysis of the facts and evolving state of the law, the Plan
acknowledged in an amended answer that it had used an incorrect
interest crediting rate in computing lump sum payments prior to
normal retirement age.  The Committee determined the interest
crediting rates that should be applied to address the interest
crediting rate calculation and determined that the benefits for
certain eligible participants should be recalculated.  Although
the Company believes the Committee has the authority to make this
determination under the Plan to resolve this particular issue, the
plaintiff is opposing the Committee's actions and the matter has
not yet been decided by the Court.  Therefore, the Company is
currently unable to predict the final outcome or impact of this
litigation.  An adverse outcome of this lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect on Plan funding and expense and its
results of operations.

                            *********

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  * * *