CAR_Public/110524.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 101

                             Headlines

AGL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Suits over Nicor Merger
AGL RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Pricing
AIRLINES: Court Rejects Foreign Injury Claims in Airfare Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Still Defends "ERISA" Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Still Defends "Romero I" Suit

AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Greenporter" and "Hayama" Suits Remain Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wisconsin and California Suits Moved to New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Meeks" Suit in Georgia
ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Illinois Class Suit
APPLE INC: Judge Okays $16.5MM Class Action Settlement Agreement

APPLE INC: Sued for Selling Game Currency to Minors
ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
AXA GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Nicholas Kaster Files Class Action in Calif.
BAPTIST HEALTH: Loses Appeal from Class Certification Ruling

BAXTER INT'L:  Appeal in ERISA-Violation Suit Still Pending
BAXTER INT'L: Consolidated Suit in Illinois Still Pending
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit Ongoing
BECTON DICKINSON: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending
BP: Lawyer Adds "First Responder" Plaintiffs in Class Action

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Gas Suits
CLECO CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Louisiana Class Suit
CNA SURETY: Board Sued Over Tender Offer for CNA'S Public Shares
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Miller" Suit in Utah

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Reed" Suit in Texas
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Seven Suits Due to Negative Publicity
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in "Karam" Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Gets Final Approval of Medstaff Class Settlement

DIEBOLD INC: Consolidated 401(k) Class Action Suit Now Dismissed
DIEBOLD INC: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Ohio
DIEBOLD INC: Mediation Resulted in Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals in Hoovers' IPO Suit Settlement Pending
EMULEX CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeals From Settlement Approval

EXCO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Texas
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Still Face Class Action in South Carolina
FRESH DEL MONTE: Extra Sweet Pineapple Litigation Continues
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaiian Suit Ruling Remains Pending
GMX RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action

GREAT SOUTHERN: More Than 200 Investors Join Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORP: Antitrust Class Suit Still Pending in Maryland
HUNTSMAN CORP: Discovery in "Polyether Polyols" Suits Ongoing
IOWA: Settles Jailed Sex Offenders' Class Action
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Florida

LIVE NATION: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment Motion
LIVE NATION: Plaintiffs to File Motion to Approve Suit Settlement
LIVE NATION: Consumer Class Action Suits Still Pending in Canada
LIVE NATION: Awaits Approval of Class Action Suit Settlement
LOOKSMART LTD: Sets Excess Settlement Proceeds as Accrued Debt

MACK TRUCKS: To Settle Retirees' Class Action for $525 Million
MELA SCIENCES: Consolidated Amended Complaint Pending in NY Court
NARA BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Accused of Violating Consumer Fraud Act
PALM'S CASINO: Sued Over Failure to Post ATM Surcharges

RIGHTHAVEN LLC: Accused of Extortion by Web Site Operators
SDT WASTE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
SMART BALANCE: "Nucoa" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Calif.
SOLUTIA INC: St. Clair County Class Suit Still Pending
SOLUTIA INC: Remains a Defendant in Putnam County Litigation

STRYKER CORP: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in N.Y.
TELE NORTE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer FPO Suit
TELE NORTE: Customer Service Centers Suits' Appeals Still Pending
TRADESTATION GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Merger Deal With Monex
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Indiana

* Jacoby & Meyers Files Class Actions v. NJ, Ct. & NY Justices




                             *********

AGL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Suits over Nicor Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources Inc. remains a defendant in several class action
lawsuits over its proposed merger with Nicor 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.

In December 2010, AGL Resources Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Nicor Inc., which the Company anticipates to
complete during the second half of 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several class action
lawsuits brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging its
and Nicor's proposed merger.  The complaints allege that the
Company aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Nicor's Board of Directors.  The shareholder actions seek, among
other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders
enjoining the defendants from completing the proposed merger and,
in certain circumstances, damages.

The Company believes the claims asserted in each lawsuit to be
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.


AGL RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------
A unit of AGL Resources Inc. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging that it charged its customers on
variable rate plan prices for natural gas that were in excess of
the published price, 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 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against the
Company's subsidiary, Georgia Natural Gas Company, alleging that
it charged its customers on variable rate plan prices for natural
gas that were in excess of the published price, failed to give
proper notice regarding the availability of potentially lower
price plans and that it changed its methodology for computing
variable rates.  The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2008.  The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit and, in May 2009,
the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's order.  In
June 2009, Georgia Natural Gas filed a petition for
reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court.  In October 2009,
the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals'
decision and held oral arguments in January 2010.  In March 2010,
the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision.
The case has been remanded back to the Superior Court of Fulton
County for further proceedings.  Georgia Natural Gas asserts that
no violation of law or Georgia Commission rules has occurred.

The Company says the case has not had, and is not expected to
have, a material impact on its results of operation or financial
condition.


AIRLINES: Court Rejects Foreign Injury Claims in Airfare Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
court rejected foreign injury claims brought by a class of air
passenger travelers against 26 airlines, finding allegations of a
decade-long international conspiracy to fix ticket prices
unconvincing.

In a consolidated complaint, the class accused the airlines of
collectively scheming to inflate ticket prices of flights between
the United States and Asia/Oceania and disguise the new rates as
surcharges, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The airlines responded by filing 13 consolidated motions to
dismiss the Sherman Act claims based on the Foreign Trade
Antitrust Improvements Act and filed rate doctrine.

During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of
the Northern District of California, attorneys for the class
argued that it satisfied the FTAIA import commerce exception based
on its definition of the word import.

According to the class, the airlines are "engaged in the business
of delivering air passengers from place to place," and that
"[p]ursuant to the FTAIA, the delivery of air passengers from
airports in Asia/Oceania to airports in the United States and vice
versa constitutes or involves import trade or import commerce."

To support its argument, the class relied on "a dictionary
definition of import that defines the verb 'import' but not the
noun" and cited "a variety of cases from vastly different legal
contexts in which courts have used the word 'import' as something
that can be done to a person," the court stated.

But Judge Breyer didn't buy that rationale, holding that "it is
too great a leap to equate air passenger travel with the importing
of people, or to characterize air passengers as 'a product (or
perhaps a service).'"

Secondly, the class had argued since most of the travel budget
would be absorbed by a high ticket price there would be less money
to spend on commercial goods within the United States.

But Judge Breyer rejected the domestic effects argument as well.
"As an initial matter, the Court finds unpersuasive Plaintiff's
allegation that travelers who spent too much money on their air
transportation will be forced to 'allocate a smaller fraction of
their total travel budget to the purchase of commercial goods and
services,'" he wrote.

Judge Breyer said the class's domestic effects argument was
"entirely indirect" and that it "makes numerous assumptions about
travelers' spending habits that are by no means certain; who is to
say that all air passengers have fixed 'travel budgets' or that
they strictly abide by those budgets?"

"Accordingly, this is not a type of domestic effect that is
recognizable by the law," he said.

While Judge Breyer described as "fairly indisputable" the belief
that U.S. residents and citizens paid more than others for the air
transportation that was the focus of the lawsuit, he said the
"Plaintiffs fail to explain how a domestic effect of diminished
spending activity, rather than the conspiracy itself, caused
Plaintiffs' foreign injuries."

But Judge Breyer's ruling was far from a slam dunk for the
airlines as he rejected their argument that the filed rate
doctrine bars the class' damages claims based on its obligation to
"file certain rates with the Department of Transportation."

"Several factual matters that would guide the Court in assessing
Defendants' arguments are currently undeveloped," he wrote.  "For
example, it is not clear which rates at issue in this case were
actually filed and which were not.  Nor is it clear whether the
DOT believes that its market-based rates are covered by the filed
rate doctrine, or what role the foreign regulators at issue play
and whether such role warrants this Court's deference," Judge
Breyer wrote.

"Accordingly, the Court finds that is not appropriate to grant
Defendants' Motion on the basis of the filed rate doctrine at this
time, and so denies the Motion as to the filed rate doctrine," he
concluded.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Motions to Dismiss in In Re Transpacific Passenger Air
Transportation Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05634 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/19/307-cv-05634.pdf


ALLSTATE LIFE: Still Defends "ERISA" Suit
-----------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Company is still defending itself against
a lawsuit by former employee agents alleging various violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

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

AIC says it has been vigorously defending the lawsuit and other
matters related to its agency program reorganization.

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


ALLSTATE LIFE: Still Defends "Romero I" Suit
--------------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Company is still defending itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by former employee agents.

AIC is defending certain matters relating to its agency program
reorganization announced in 1999.  These matters include a lawsuit
filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (the "EEOC I"
suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents
alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations (the "Romero I" suit).  In 2004, in the consolidated
EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a
memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes
of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a
release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory
judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release
signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who voids the
release must return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the
[agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The court also
stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis
for claims of age discrimination."  The EEOC and plaintiffs asked
the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order
and in January 2007, the judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from
a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not
appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided
that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the
question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be
addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the
appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision
which granted AIC's summary judgment motions, remanded the cases
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
cases be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In January
2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

AIC says it has been vigorously defending against the lawsuit and
other matters related to its agency program reorganization.

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Greenporter" and "Hayama" Suits Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The separate lawsuits commenced by Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama
LLC, and Hayama Inc. against American Express Company remains
stayed, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws.  These cases have all been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company et al.  The Marcus case is
not consolidated.  The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of damages.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action filed by The Marcus Corporation,
which was denied in July 2005.  In October 2007, The Marcus
Corporation filed a motion seeking certification of a class.  In
March 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, without prejudicing their right to remake such a
motion upon resolution of the pending summary judgment motion.  In
April 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the March 2009 order.  In September 2008,
American Express moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
The Marcus Corporation's complaint, and The Marcus Corporation
cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability.  A decision on the summary judgment motions is
pending.

A case captioned Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al.,
which makes similar allegations, was filed and remains in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December
2003).  To date the Hayama action has been stayed.

In February 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation.  The amended complaint contains a
single count alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws
through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a) corporate, small
business and/or personal charge card services; and (b) Blue,
Costco and standard GNS credit card services.  In addition, in
February 2009, a new complaint making the same allegations was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  That new case is captioned Greenporter LLC
and Bar Hama LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc.  Proceedings in the Greenporter
action have been held in abeyance pending the disposition of the
motions for summary judgment in the Marcus case.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wisconsin and California Suits Moved to New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
issued a conditional transfer order of certain putative class
actions pending in California and Wisconsin to the Eastern
District of New York, according to American Express Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2010, two putative class action complaints making
allegations similar to those in In re American Express Anti-
Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Firefly Air Solutions, LLC d/b/a 128 Caf‚ and Plymouth Oil Corp.
d/b/a Liberty Gas Station. In addition, in December 2010, a
putative class action complaint making similar allegations, and
seeking certification of a Wisconsin-only class, was filed by
Treehouse Inc. d/b/a Treehouse Gift & Home in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In January
2011, a putative class complaint, captioned Il Forno v. American
Express Centurion Bank, seeking certification of a California-only
class and making allegations similar to those in In re American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, was filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. These matters also had been partially stayed pending
the Second Circuit's arbitration decision in action captioned In
re American Express Merchants' Litigation. After the partial stay
was lifted, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Complaint making
similar allegations to the prior class allegations in the various
class complaints, but dropping certain merchants as plaintiffs.

On February 7, 2011, in response to a transfer motion filed by the
plaintiffs in the Plymouth Oil action, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order centralizing
the actions in the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Nicholas G.
Garaufis: (a) the putative class action that had been previously
pending in the Southern District of New York captioned In re
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation; (b) the
putative class actions already pending in the Eastern District of
New York filed by Firefly Air Solutions, LLC and by Plymouth Oil
Corp.; and (c) the individual merchant suits already pending in
the Eastern District of New York. On February 15, 2011, the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued a
conditional transfer order centralizing the related putative class
actions pending in the Central District of California and Western
District of Wisconsin before Judge Garaufis in the Eastern
District of New York, and those actions have been centralized
before Judge Garaufis for all pre-trial purposes.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Meeks" Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned Meeks v. American Express Centurion
remains pending in Georgia, according to American Express
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2010, a putative class action, captioned Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in Fulton County
Superior Court, Georgia. In October 2010, the Company removed the
matter to federal court. The complaint alleges that plaintiff
opened an account in 2005 with an interest rate of prime plus an
additional marginal rate of 2.99 percent. Plaintiff contends that
he was promised that the marginal rate would remain fixed.
Plaintiff alleges that beginning in December 2008 the marginal
rate began to increase. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of
contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, unjust enrichment and duress. Plaintiff seeks
to certify a nationwide class of all American Express Cardmembers
who received unilateral interest rate increases despite their
accounts being in good standing. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking
to remand the case from federal court back to state court, and
that motion has been denied.


ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Illinois Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anixter International Inc. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2011.

On September 11, 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement
System filed a purported class action under the federal securities
laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against the Company, its current and former chief
executive officers and its chief financial officer. On
November 18, 2009, the Court entered an order appointing the
Indiana Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing
lead plaintiff's counsel. On January 6, 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint principally
alleges that the Company made misleading statements during 2008
regarding certain aspects of its financial performance and
outlook. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company between
January 29 and October 20, 2008. On March 31, 2011, the Court
dismissed the complaint but allowed the lead plaintiff the
opportunity to re-plead its complaint. Plaintiff did so on
April 28, 2011. The Company and the other defendants intend to
continue to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations.
Based on facts known to management at this time, the Company
cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any, and, therefore, has
not made any accrual for this matter in these financial
statements.


APPLE INC: Judge Okays $16.5MM Class Action Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that District Court
Judge Jeremy Fogel approved a $16.5 million agreement on May 18 to
settle class action shareholder claims that Apple Inc. and several
executives and board members backdated employee stock options for
more than a decade and issued false and misleading financial
statements.

The New York City Employee Retirement System based its claims on a
series of announcements and a corrective disclosure made by Apple
regarding its issuance of stock option grants.

"The grants were frequently dated just after a sharp drop in the
Company's stock price and before a substantial rise in the
Company's stock price," according to the complaint filed in August
2006 in the Northern District of California.

"This extraordinary pattern of stock option grants demonstrates
that the purported grant dates were not the actual dates on which
the stock option grants were made.  Rather, defendants improperly
backdated the stock option grants to make it appear as though the
grants were made on dates when the market price of Apple's stock
was lower than the market price of the actual grant dates," the
complaint said.

Judge Fogel's order puts an end to litigation lasting more than
four years.  "The parties attest that this action would have
continued for years and that its outcome would have been uncertain
had they not reached a settlement," the order reads.

Shareholders of record at the time of the backdating stand to
recover up to $1.70 per share.

The agreement also provides that any amount remaining in the
settlement fund after distribution to the class will be donated to
nine university corporate governance programs.

The pension fund's attorneys were granted their requested fees of
$1.9 million, which, Judge Fogel says in the order, "is well below
the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25% of the recovery for the class
in common fund cases."

Though objector Patrick Pezzati's lawyers sought a $2.5 million
fee award, they will walk away with $87,000 and an incentive
payment of $1,000, which Judge Fogel concludes "fairly will
compensate Pezzati and his counsel for their contributions to this
litigation."

Notice of the proposed agreement has been mailed to more than 1.3
million individuals, 31,886 record holders, and 5,802 bankers,
brokers, and other nominees who may hold shares for potential
class members.

Plaintiff New York City Employee Retirement System's lead attorney
is:

          Charles Caliendo, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
          QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 801-5000
          E-mail: dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com

A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement; Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses; and Granting in Part Objector Pezzati's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award in In Re Apple Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-05208 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/uT3Z7n


APPLE INC: Sued for Selling Game Currency to Minors
---------------------------------------------------
Twilah Monroe, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02394 (N.D. Calif. May 16,
2011), is filed on behalf of all persons in the United States
whose minor children (a) downloaded from defendant Apple, Inc., a
free application (App) and (b) then incurred charges for game-
related voidable purchases that the minor was induced by Apple to
make, without the parents' and guardians' knowledge or
authorization.

Apple is a market leader in the manufacture, marketing and sale of
computers and computing devices, as well as the leading seller of
"Apps," i.e., software applications that users download on their
mobile computing devices.  Among the thousands of Apps that Apple
offers for sale are gaming Apps targeted at children.

Although numerous gaming Apps are offered for free and may be
downloaded at no cost, plaintiff relates that many such games are
designed to induce purchases of what Apple refers to as "In-App
Purchases" or "In-App Content," i.e., virtual supplies,
ammunition, fruits and vegetables, cash and other fake "currency,"
etc., within the game in order to play the game as it was designed
to be played ("Game Currency").

Ms. Monroe says Apple's scheme to induce minors to purchase
Game Currency violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code section 1750, and Unfair Competition Law, Business
& Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Apple requires its users to authenticate their accounts by
entering a password prior to purchasing and/or downloading an App
or buying Game Currency.  Until recently, however, once the
password was entered, Apple permitted the user, even if a minor,
to buy Game Currency for up to fifteen minutes without re-entering
the password.  This practice enabled minors to buy Game Currency,
in one-click sums of $99.99 or more, without entering a password,
causing Apple to pocket millions of dollars from such Game
Currency transactions with minors and without the authorization of
their parents, whose credit cards or PayPal accounts are
automatically charged for the purchases.

Further, because passwords now required for purchases of Game
Currency are the same passwords required for any Apple purchase,
minors who are aware of the password may purchase Game Currency
without authorization from their parents for subsequent purchases.

Plaintiff Twilah Monroe resides in McCalester, Oklahoma with her
husband and their twin six-year-old daughters.  Ms. Monroe opened
an iTunes account, placing her debit card on file to make
purchases.  In June 2010, Ms. Monroe says she downloaded onto her
iPhone the "free" gaming App "Fishies."  Ms. Monroe then handed
the iPhone to one of her (then-five-year-old) daughters so that
her daughter could play the "free" game.  Two or three days later,
Ms. Monroe checked her debit card account online, and discovered
that iTunes charged her account $99.99 for such Game Currency as a
"Chest of 1,250 Pearls."  Apple denied Ms. Monroe's e-mail and
telephonic requests for a refund.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Cupertino, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net


ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc. continues to defend itself in a securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007.  The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron; Stephen B. Morris, the
Company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer;
and Sean R. Creamer, the Company's current Executive Vice
President, U.S. Media Services and former Chief Financial Officer,
violated federal securities laws.  The plaintiff alleges
misrepresentations and omissions relating, among other things, to
the delay in commercialization of the Company's PPM ratings
service in November 2007, as well as stock sales during the period
by company insiders who were not named as defendants and
Messrs. Morris and Creamer.  The plaintiff seeks class
certification, compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees, among other remedies.  On September 22, 2008 the plaintiff
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.  On November 25, 2008,
Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer each filed Motions to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.  In September 2009,
the plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in lieu of oral argument on the pending Motions to
Dismiss.  The court granted leave to file a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and denied the pending Motions to Dismiss
without prejudice.  On or about October 19, 2009, the plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  Briefing on
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint was
completed in March 2010.  Arbitron and each of Mr. Morris and Mr.
Creamer again moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On September 24, 2010, the Court granted Mr. Creamer's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff?s claims against him, and all
claims against Mr. Creamer were dismissed with prejudice.  The
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by
Arbitron and Mr. Morris were denied.  Arbitron and Mr. Morris each
then filed answers denying the claims.

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
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Arbitron Inc. -- http://www.arbitron.com/-- is a media and
marketing research firm serving the media -- radio, television,
cable and out-of-home -- as well as advertisers and advertising
agencies.  Arbitron's core businesses are measuring network and
local market radio audiences across the United States; surveying
the retail, media and product patterns of local market consumers;
and providing application software used for analyzing media
audience and marketing information data.  The company has
developed the Portable People Meter and PPM 360, new technologies
for media and marketing research.


AXA GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Massey, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
a federal class-action suit has been filed against a New York unit
of French insurance giant AXA Group alleging that thousands of
U.S. employees worked as many as 60 hours per week but weren't
paid minimum wage or overtime.

The suit, which names two former employees of the firm as
plaintiffs, alleges that AXA Financial, AXA Advisors and other
related entities hired unlicensed financial product marketers,
made them pay for training materials and registration fees, and
required them to work without compensation while studying for
exams.

Upon becoming licensed, the workers earned a flat salary and
commission on sales but were "not compensated for any time spent
working past 40 hours in a week," according to the complaint.  It
also alleges that AXA failed to maintain complete timesheets or
payroll records for employees.

A spokesman for AXA had not yet received the complaint and did not
immediately comment.  AXA Group recorded $129 billion in revenues
in 2010 and ranked No. 9 on the Fortune Global 500 list.

One of the plaintiffs, Bennet Marcus, worked as a financial
product marketer for five months beginning in October 2010, at
AXA's office at 1633 Broadway in Manhattan.  He worked 12-hour
days, five days per week, but did not receive one-and-a-half-time-
pay for overtime as mandated by federal and state law, the
complaint charges.

The other named plaintiff, Steve Kennedy, was not paid during his
training because he did not reach a sales quota, the complaint
says.  After training, he worked as many as seven days per week
for a salary of $24,000, plus commission.

"A lot of these young college grads, especially with this job
market being so depressed, they don't want to complain," said
Jeffrey Brown of the Long Island law firm Leeds Morelli & Brown,
which brought the suit.  "They're being told do your job, and
you'll be noticed, but that's not happening here."  Mr. Brown said
he had received complaints from AXA employees around the country.

The suit, which requests a jury trial, seeks unspecified back
wages and overtime, damages, interest, attorney fees and costs.
Mr. Brown said the damages could be "in the tens of millions."

In addition to claims under federal law, the plaintiffs are
seeking damages for underpayment of wages under New York state law
for AXA's workers here.


BANK OF AMERICA: Nicholas Kaster Files Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 2011, Plaintiff Kent Farmer filed a class action
lawsuit against Bank of America and Balboa Insurance Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America routinely "force places"
exorbitantly priced Balboa hazard insurance on borrowers with
lapsed hazard insurance.

According to the complaint, Bank of America has a pre-existing
agreement with its affiliate insurer, Balboa, whereby Balboa
agrees to issue forced placed insurance at a premium cost to
homeowners.  The Balboa insurance is often issued months after the
borrower's original insurance lapsed.  Bank of America allows
Balboa to backdate the policies to the date of the lapse itself,
forcing homeowners to insure against the past.

According to Mr. Farmer's lawyer, Michelle Drake, Esq.,
"Backdating runs counter to the whole idea of insurance, which is
to protect against future risks.  We allege that, by routinely
backdating policies and charging exorbitant prices for that
backdated insurance, Bank of America and Balboa are abusing their
customers and treating their mortgage agreements like blank
checks."

The class action complaint seeks relief on behalf of Farmer and
other borrowers across the country, who have been similarly
affected by Bank of America's alleged conduct.  The complaint
asserts that Bank of America and Balboa committed fraud, breached
their contracts with their customers, and were unjustly enriched
by their unlawful practices.

"Banks know all too well that many people are behind on their
mortgage payments right now.  It is just plain wrong for them to
be imposing additional burdens on homeowners in the hope of
earning a quick buck for their affiliates," said Ms. Drake.
"Practices like this are bad for borrowers."

The case is entitled Farmer v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No.
SA CV 11-739 (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebekah Bailey, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-277-7235

Nichols Kaster has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San
Francisco, California.


BAPTIST HEALTH: Loses Appeal from Class Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court says it found no abuse of discretion in a
circuit court's order granting a class certification motion.

Appellant Baptist Health appealed from the Pulaski County Circuit
Court's order granting appellee Andre Hutson's class certification
motion.

This was the hospital's second interlocutory appeal.

In its first appeal, the state's high court reversed the
certification because the circuit court's conclusion -- that the
requirements of commonality concerning issues of fact and law,
predominance and superiority were satisfied -- was an insufficient
analysis of class-action factors.

Baptist argued on its second appeal that the circuit court abused
its discretion by approving a class definition that impermissibly
requires delving into the merits to identify the class members.

It also argued that the court abused its discretion in finding
that the requirements of predominance and superiority, under
Rule 23 of the state's Rules of Civil Procedure, had been
satisfied.

Class actions are governed by Rule 23, which provides that one or
more members of a class may sue in a representative capacity only
if the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable and there are questions of law or fact common to the
class.

The Court, in a ruling filed on May 12, said it found no abuse of
discretion in the circuit court's approval of the definition.
Justice Karen R. Baker authored the Court's 11-page opinion.

"Here, the circuit court found that the class description was
definite and administratively feasible for determining whether a
particular person was a member.  The court stated that identifying
a potential class member required determining the date of
admission, receipt of one or more (identified medical services),
assessment of charges at the master-charge rate, and payment or
legal liability for the charges," the Court explained.

"Identification of a class member may require determining whether
the person is legally responsible for the charges for services or
goods received from Baptist; however, that does not require
delving into the individual merits of each claim.  Legal
responsibility for the charges is but one factor to consider, and
based upon the evidence presented to the circuit court, Baptist's
records contain much of the information needed to analyze this
issue."

The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in the court's
determination that the requirement of superiority is satisfied.

"Here, the circuit court found that a class action was the
superior method for proceeding because the only alternative method
to adjudicate the claims of the class would be through numerous
separate trials, with the potential for different and inconsistent
results," the Court wrote.

"The circuit court stated that in this situation, certifying the
class would provide a substantial benefit from the standpoint of
efficiency and judicial economy.  Additionally, the circuit court
found that the claims typical of the class are generally too small
to pursue individually, so that if they cannot sue as a class, it
is likely that the claims will never be heard.  That only five
(identified medical services) are included in this class and that
there may be numerous other persons or claims remaining was
considered by the circuit court and rejected as a basis to defeat
superiority."

It added, "We have noted that the question of superiority is very
much related to the broad discretion conferred on a circuit
court."


BAXTER INT'L:  Appeal in ERISA-Violation Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Baxter
International Inc. in a purported class action lawsuit remains
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 31, 2011.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter and
its current Chief Executive Officer and then current Chief
Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by
offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of
the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.  In
March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan participants
who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through the plans
between January 2001 and the present.  Summary judgment in the
company's favor was granted by the trial court in May 2010.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.


BAXTER INT'L: Consolidated Suit in Illinois Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter
International Inc. and certain of its current executive officers.
The complaint alleges that, from September 17, 2009, to May 3,
2010, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies business
and the Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps
causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially high
levels.  A similar suit was filed against the Company and certain
of its executive officers in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern
District of Illinois in November 2010.  These suits seek to
recover the lost value of investors' stock as damages.  These
suits have been consolidated for further proceedings.

No further updates were reported in 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.


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit against Baxter
International Inc. and its competitors relating to plasma-derived
therapies, 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 is a defendant, along with others, in nineteen
lawsuits brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that
Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output
and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since 2003.  The complaints attempt to state a claim for class
action relief and in some cases demand treble damages.  These
cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois.  In February 2011,
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the
claims and the parties are proceeding into discovery.


BECTON DICKINSON: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order denying a motion to approve a settlement
agreement in the class action lawsuits against Becton, Dickinson
and Company remains pending, according to the Company's May 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of distributors and other entities
that purchase the Company's products, alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the Company's products to the plaintiffs and
other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et. al. vs. Becton           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,     Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et. al. vs. Becton,          Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The Company is also named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
products, such as hospitals, alleging that the Company violated
federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the Company's products to the plaintiffs and
other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 7, 2005
et. al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et. al. v. Becton          Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement
agreement provided for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45,000 in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims. The release would not cover
potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement.  On September 30, 2010, the court issued an order
denying a motion to approve the settlement agreement, ruling that
the Hospital Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are
the direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal
antitrust laws for certain sales of BD products.

The settlement agreement currently remains in effect, subject to
certain termination provisions, and the Distributor Plaintiffs are
seeking appellate review of the court's order.  The Company says
it currently cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible
losses with respect to these class action matters beyond the
amount already reserved and changes to the amount already
recognized may be required in the future as additional information
becomes available.


BP: Lawyer Adds "First Responder" Plaintiffs in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for the Louisiana Record, reports that
Brent Coon, Esq., of Beaumont asserts claims for 125 clients in a
potential class action over chemical effects of the Deepwater
Horizon explosion and cleanup.

Mr. Coon filed a complaint in national litigation before U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier in April, and he amended it to add
plaintiffs on May 13.

"Many of these plaintiffs were first responders to the oil spill
cleanup and remediation efforts," he wrote.

Mr. Coon wrote that they participated in the "vessels of
opportunity" program of oil company BP and in beach cleanup
activities.

"Plaintiffs suffered both skin contact and inhalation of crude oil
and chemical dispersants," Mr. Coon said.

Airplanes sprayed dispersants in close proximity to vessels, he
added.

He wrote that many plaintiffs immediately experienced burning
skin, rashes, headaches, watering eyes, coughing, nausea,
dizziness, and confusion.  Some have manifested loss of feeling in
their extremities, rectal bleeding, anxiety, insomnia, and
depression.

"The full extent of the damage caused by the mixture of crude oil
and the dispersant chemicals used in the cleanup efforts in the
Gulf of Mexico have yet to be fully revealed," Mr. Coon pointed
out.

He claimed damages for loss of income in addition to pain,
suffering, and anguish.

Mr. Coon supplied no details, instead adopting a master complaint
that a plaintiff steering committee filed for all chemical
exposure cases in March.

The master complaint seeks class action relief for captains and
crews of cleanup vessels, shoreline cleanup workers, and all who
live and work nearby.

Like other groups of plaintiffs in Judge Barbier's court, chemical
exposure plaintiffs pursue claims against oil company BP, rig
owner Transocean, and rig investors.

Unlike other groups of plaintiffs, they pursue claims against
cleanup contractors and chemical manufacturers.

Their complaint identifies cleanup defendants as Marine Spill
Response Corporation, Airborne Support, Lynden Inc., Dynamic
Aviation, International Air Response, Lane Aviation, National
Response Corporation, O'Brien Response Management, The Modern
Group, and DRC Emergency Services.

It identifies the manufacturer defendants as Nalco, Inc., and
unknown others.

It specifically seeks damages for captains and crews of vessels of
opportunity.

"BP used at least 2,000 commercial and charter fishing vessels and
other boats from communities along the shoreline to tow and deploy
booms," the complaint states, adding that that oil hardened like
varnish on hulls and decks.

The complaint states that BP left holes and dents in vessels when
it removed its equipment.

Nalco's dispersant, Corexit, is harmful if ingested or inhaled, or
if it comes into contact with skin, it pointed out.

The complaint seeks compensation from BP and other drilling
defendants for property damage, contractual damages, loss of
profits and earning capacity, and damage to vessels, under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, maritime law, or charter agreements.

From all defendants, it seeks personal injury damages and medical
monitoring.

The complaint proposes a class action with subclasses for those
with discernible physical injuries, those with no manifestation of
injury, and those with property damage.

Judge Barbier presides over oil spill suits from federal courts in
many states by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi
District Litigation.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Gas Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to pursue dismissal of
lawsuits relating to its operation of gas markets in 2000 to 2002.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI Energy, Inc.,
was a participant in gas trading in the California and Western
markets.  These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class
actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees.  CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.  CenterPoint
Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal
court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural
gas prices in 2000-2002.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was
dismissed in 2007, but in March 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court.  CenterPoint Energy
believes that neither it nor CES is a proper defendant in these
remaining cases and will continue to pursue dismissal from those
cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of
these remaining matters to have a material impact on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is a public utility holding company.
Its operating subsidiaries own and operate electric transmission
and distribution facilities, natural gas distribution facilities,
interstate pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and
treating facilities.  As of March 2011, CenterPoint Enegy's
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric LLC and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.


CLECO CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Louisiana Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and the Louisiana Public Service Commission are
awaiting a ruling on their appeal from an administrative law
judge's ruling that the Commission has jurisdiction to decide the
claims raised by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit alleging
Cleco overcharged them, according to the Company's May 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by
applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco
Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs
allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public
Service Commission following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco
Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise
granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an
operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to
which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases
and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas.
In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have
been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric
customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be
properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness
Act.  On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in
the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of
Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which
was submitted on behalf of a number of Opelousas residents.  Cleco
Power has responded in the same manner as with the first class
action lawsuit.  On September 29, 2010, the federal court remanded
both cases to the state court in which they were originally filed
for further proceedings.

On January 21, 2011, the presiding judge in the state court
proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  On February 7, 2011, the
administrative law judge in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the
commission has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the
class action plaintiffs.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed
the ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of
Louisiana, and await a decision by such court.  Management
believes that these lawsuits will not have a material adverse
effect on the Registrants' financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.


CNA SURETY: Board Sued Over Tender Offer for CNA'S Public Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------
CapGrowth Partners, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. John F. Welch, et al., Case No. 2011-CH-17746 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 16, 2011), is a shareholder action against
CNA Surety Corporation, its Board of directors, and its 61%
controlling shareholder, CNA Corporation (CNAF).  The action
challenges defendants' actions in causing the Company to enter
into an agreement pursuant to which a wholly owned subsidiary of
CNAF will purchase, via tender offer, the remaining 39% of the
issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock which
CNAF does not already own for $26.55 per share in cash.

The Complaint asserts that CNAF has used its control of the
Company and its Board to coerce them to agree to the Sale
Agreement at an unfair price and pursuant to an inadequate
process.

The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants further
breached their fiduciary duty when on or about May 11, 2011, they
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and mailed to
CNA's shareholders, a Recommendation Statement which concealed
certain material information "which a reasonable shareholder would
find material in determining whether to tender their shares,"
including information regarding (i) the coercion engaged in by
CNAF to pressure the Board and shareholders to support the Sale
Agreement, (ii) the conflicts of interest of the financial
advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. hired to, among other things, render
an opinion of the fairness of the price to be paid, (iii) the
purported "sale process" that the individual defendants engaged in
prior to entering the Sale Agreement, and (iv) details of the
analyses underlying the Fairness Opinion.

Plaintiff CapGrowth Partners has continuously owned common stock
in CNA since May 2009.

Defendant CNA, a Delaware Corporation with principal executive
offices at 333 S. Wabash Avenue, 41st Floor, in Chicago, Illinois,
develops, markets, and underwrites primarily surety bonds, through
its subsidiaries.  Defendant John F. Welch has served as director,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since 2003.

Defendant CNAF, a Delaware corporation with headquarters located
at 333 S. Wabash Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, operates as an
insurance holding company and, through its subsidiaries, provides
commercial property and casualty coverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leland E. Shalgos, Esq.
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 615
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 922-8980
          E-mail: Shalgos@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          Lauren Watson, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit captioned Alisha Montgomery, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian Schools, Inc. d/b/a
Everest College and Olympia College, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs are thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs seek to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and seek actual and compensatory damages on behalf
of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and
benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such
other relief as the court deems proper.  The Company removed the
case to federal court and moved to compel individual arbitrations,
which the court granted.  Plaintiffs have not yet filed individual
demands in arbitration.  The Company believes these matters are
without merit and intends to defend itself and its subsidiary
vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Miller" Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit pending in Utah, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Chelsi Miller, Daniel Marty and Christie Cotton, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc, et al. was filed in the Third Judicial District of
Utah State Court.  The named plaintiffs are former students of the
Company's Everest College in Salt Lake City, Utah, and seek to
represent a class of all persons who completed courses and/or
received credits from Everest College in Salt Lake City during the
four-year period ending on the date the action was filed.  The
complaint alleges that the Company made fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentations and violated the Utah Sales and Consumer
Practices Act in connection with statements to students about
accreditation and transfers of credit and the amount of costs and
fees.  The plaintiffs seek an order certifying a class,
declaration that the arbitration provisions in the plaintiffs'
enrollment agreements are unconscionable, injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement and other injunctive relief, imposition
of a constructive trust, actual and punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs of suit.  The
Company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to
compel individual arbitrations, which the court granted.
Plaintiffs have not yet filed individual demands in arbitration.

The Company believes these matters are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Reed" Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Texas
Education Code, according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of suit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.  On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class action
demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator has ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but has not yet addressed
whether a class should be certified.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
putative class action commenced by certain students in California,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc., and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator is considering whether
the arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment
agreement is susceptible to class-wide resolution.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Seven Suits Due to Negative Publicity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is facing seven class action lawsuits,
which it believes are largely the result of negative publicity,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

During the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2011, the
Company has experienced an unprecedented increase in putative
class action lawsuits by former students.  In all of these cases,
the plaintiffs and their counsel seek to represent a class of
"similarly situated" people as defined in the complaint.  The
Company believes these lawsuits are largely the result of negative
publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment of potential
clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's rulemaking
efforts, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions hearings, the Government Accountability Office report,
and other related matters.  In virtually all of the following
cases, the plaintiffs cite testimony from the HELP Committee
hearings, the GAO report, public statements by elected officials
and/or other negative media coverage in their complaints.

The Company believes all of these complaints are contractually
required to be resolved in individual arbitrations between the
named students and the Company, and the Company has moved, or will
move, to compel these cases to arbitration:

                     Named Plaintiffs
Dated Filed        & Campus Attended                  Venue
-----------        -----------------                  -----
Dec. 20, 2010        Jacquel Kimble;   U.S. District Court,
                   Everest College in      Northern District
                  Hayward, California          of California

Jan. 24, 2011        Kevin Ferguson;   U.S. District Court,
                    Everest Institute       Central District
                    in Miami, Florida          of California


Feb. 17, 2011          Sandra Muniz;   U.S. District Court,
                        Heald College       Central District
                   campuses in Rancho          of California
                  Cordova & Roseville
                           California

Feb. 28, 2011        Laura Irizarry;   U.S. District Court,
                   Everest University        Middle District
                    in Tampa, Florida             of Florida

March 7, 2011    Sharon Jalanic-Reed       California State
                   and Lynell Graves;                 Court,
                     Everest College,     Los Angeles County
                    West Los Angeles,
                           California

March 11, 2011   Noravel Arevalo and   American Arbitration
                   14 former students            Association
                  at Everest College,
                  in Alhambra, Calif.

April 22, 2011     Kenneth Stockman;   U.S. District Court,
                      Everest College       Central District
                    in Reseda, Calif.          of California

The Ferguson and Muniz matters have been consolidated by the court
into one action.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in "Karam" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
appointed Wyoming Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds
Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the
consolidated action against Corinthian Colleges, Inc., according
to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain
material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain
material facts about the condition of the Company's business and
prospects during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs
to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino,
Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief.  On
October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs have intervened in the lawsuit and have
petitioned the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement
System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead
plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for
lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  Lead plaintiffs are
required to file an amended consolidated complaint no later than
May 5, 2011.  The Company believes the complaints are without
merit and intends to defend itself and its current and former
officers vigorously.


CROSS COUNTRY: Gets Final Approval of Medstaff Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has granted final approval of a Cross County
Healthcare, Inc. subsidiary's $300,000 settlement of an employee
class action over labor law violations, according to the Company's
May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 18, 2005, the Company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Maureen
Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court of California in Riverside County.  The lawsuit
related to only MedStaff corporate employees working in
California.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, violations
of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the California
Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.  In December 2009, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter.  As a result, the Company accrued
a pre-tax charge of $0.3 million (approximately $0.2 million after
taxes) related to the lawsuit.  The Court granted final approval
of the class settlement on March 18, 2011.  The final settlement
amount was $0.3 million, which was paid during the first quarter
of 2011.

Cross County Healthcare, Inc. is a diversified leader in
healthcare staffing services offering a comprehensive suite of
staffing and outsourcing services to the healthcare market.  It
has four business segments, namely (1) nurse and allied staffing,
(2) physician staffing, (3) clinical trial services, and (4) other
human capital management services.


DIEBOLD INC: Consolidated 401(k) Class Action Suit Now Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action litigation related to Diebold
Incorporated's 401(k) Plan has been dismissed after the Court
approved a settlement entered into by the parties, according to
the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

The Company has been served with various lawsuits, filed against
it and certain current and former officers and directors, by
participants in the Company's 401(k) savings plan. These
complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, fees
and expenses related to such lawsuits and the granting of
extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. For each of
these lawsuits, the date each complaint was filed, the name of the
plaintiff and the federal court in which such lawsuit is pending
are:

   * McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed January 24, 2006).

   * Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 15, 2006).

   * Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 8, 2006).

   * Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 10, 2006).

   * Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed March 14, 2006).

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have
been consolidated into a single proceeding. In May 2009, the
Company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action litigation for
$4,500,000 to be paid out of the Company's insurance policies. On
February 11, 2011, the court entered an order approving the
settlement and dismissed the litigation with prejudice.


DIEBOLD INC: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Incorporated is still defending itself against a
securities class action filed in Ohio, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461). The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses related
to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the matters
set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010
finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement).


DIEBOLD INC: Mediation Resulted in Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The mediation held in a class action lawsuit in California
alleging wage laws violations against Diebold, Inc., resulted in a
tentative settlement among the parties, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 28, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging that a class of all California technicians
employed by the Company who were scheduled to be on standby were:
(a) not paid for all hours that they worked; (b) not paid overtime
compensation at the correct rate of pay; (c) not properly paid for
missed meal and rest breaks and (d) not given correct paycheck
stubs (Francisco v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. CV 1889 WQH
WMC). The complaint seeks additional overtime and other
compensation under the California Labor Code, various civil
penalties and attorneys' fees and expenses, and a request for an
injunction for future compliance with the California Labor Code
provisions that were alleged to have been violated. A mediation
was held in the first quarter of 2011, which resulted in a
tentative settlement, subject to agreement on final settlement
terms and court approval, that is not considered material to the
consolidated financial statements.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals in Hoovers' IPO Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, disclosed that appeals filed by objectors to
the settlement entered in a putative class action relating to
Hoover's Inc.'s initial public offering remain pending.

On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against Hoover's Inc., certain of its then current and
former officers and directors, and one of the underwriters of
Hoover's July 1999 initial public offering.  The lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Hoover's stock between July 20, 1999
and December 6, 2000.  The operative complaint alleges violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Hoover's and the Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs
allege that the underwriter allocated stock in Hoover's IPO to
certain investors in exchange for commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at prices above the IPO price.  Plaintiffs allege that
the prospectus for Hoover's IPO was false and misleading because
it did not disclose these arrangements.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
ours, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including Hoover's.  Hoover's
would not be required incur a liability as a result of this
settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval
to the settlement.  Objectors to the settlement are proceeding
with appeals to the Second Circuit seeking, among other things, a
greater financial recovery for the purported class than would be
allowed under the approved settlement.  Plaintiffs have moved to
dismiss each of the appeals.

Dun & Bradstreet believes that it does not have a probable or
reasonably possible loss exposure given the approved settlement.
However, given the appeals and the uncertainty of their impact
should they be granted, the Company currently cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is a source of commercial
information and insight on businesses, enabling customers to
Decide with Confidence(R) for 170 years.  Its global commercial
database contains more than 195 million business records.


EMULEX CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeals From Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation is awaiting a decision regarding appeals from a
ruling approving the settlement of a class action lawsuit related
to Vixel Corp., according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 27, 2011.

On November 15, 2001, prior to the Company's acquisition of Vixel
Corporation, a securities class action was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York as Case
No. 01 CIV. 10053 (SAS), Master File No. 21 MC92 (SAS) against
Vixel and two of its officers and directors (one of which is James
M. McCluney, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer) and
certain underwriters who participated in the Vixel initial public
offering in late 1999. The amended complaint alleged violations
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the
Securities Act and sought unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased Vixel stock during the period October 1, 1999
through December 6, 2000. On April 2, 2009, the parties signed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the 2009 Settlement) to
the District Court for preliminary approval. The District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 6, 2009, the District Court entered an opinion granting
final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of
the District Court close these actions. The 2009 Settlement
provides for a settlement amount of $586 million, and Emulex has
no obligation to pay any part of that amount. Notices of appeal of
the opinion granting final approval were originally filed by six
groups of appellants, four of whom have settled with plaintiffs.


EXCO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Exco Resources, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit in a Texas state court,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On October 29, 2010, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Douglas H. Miller presented a letter to the Company's
board of directors indicating an interest in acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's stock not already owned by Mr.
Miller for a cash purchase price of $20.50 per share. The proposal
does not represent a definitive offer and there is no assurance
that a definitive offer will be made or accepted, that any
agreement will be executed or that any transaction will be
consummated.

Since November 3, 2010, nine related shareholder derivative
lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of the Company in state
and federal courts in Dallas, Texas alleging claims related to Mr.
Miller's proposal. The lawsuits name as defendants all of the
members of the Company's board of directors, and in some of the
lawsuits, also name as defendants two of the Company's investors,
Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and Ares Management, LLC. The
Company is named as a nominal defendant in each of the cases. The
shareholder derivative lawsuits generally allege that the
Company's directors have breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to implement fair and adequate procedures for the
consideration of Mr. Miller's proposal and by failing to maximize
shareholder value. The remaining defendants are alleged to have
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiffs seek on behalf of the Company an injunction preventing
consummation of Mr. Miller's proposed transaction, unspecified
compensatory damages from the defendants other than the Company,
and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

Also, since November 3, 2010, two putative shareholder class
actions have been filed against the Company and all of the members
of the Company's board of directors in state district courts in
Dallas County, Texas. The purported class actions allege that the
Company and the Company's directors breached fiduciary duties
allegedly owed to public shareholders by attempting to consummate
a transaction based on Mr. Miller's proposal. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, an order rescinding any transaction based on
Mr. Miller's proposal, an accounting from the defendants for any
profits or special benefits they may have received, and an award
of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company's board of directors established a special committee
on November 4, 2010, comprised of two independent directors to,
among other things, evaluate and determine the Company's response
to the October 29, 2010, proposal and to evaluate the allegations
raised in the derivative lawsuits. The special committee retained
Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Jones Day as its legal counsel and
Barclays Capital, Inc., and Evercore Partners as its financial
advisors to assist it in, among other things, evaluating and
determining the Company's response to the proposal.

All of the state court proceedings have been consolidated into one
court and are now proceeding as a consolidated derivative action
and a consolidated class action. Separate lead plaintiffs' counsel
have been appointed for the consolidated derivative action and the
consolidated direct class action. Currently, there are four
lawsuits pending in Texas state and federal courts related to Mr.
Miller's proposal: the consolidated derivative action and
consolidated direct class action are pending in state court and
two derivative actions are pending in federal court.

On April 18, 2011, the Company and the members of the Board moved
to dismiss the consolidated state court derivative action.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Still Face Class Action in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Fidelity National Financial Inc. continue to
defend themselves against a class action lawsuit filed in
California but now transferred and pending in South Carolina,
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 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a class action in the
United States District court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division titled Vivian Hays, et al., vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who deposited
their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Service and
were not able to use them in their contemplated exchanges due to
the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the collapse of the
auction rate security market in early 2008.  Plaintiffs allege
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation (which was merged into Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at LES and had an
obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not disclose and
instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to fund prior
exchangers' transactions with money from new exchangers.
Plaintiffs have sued the Company's subsidiaries Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud and
aiding and abetting LES.  Plaintiffs ask for compensatory and
punitive damages, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney's
fees.

The Company has employed counsel and intend to vigorously defend
the action.  The case did not include a statement as to the amount
of damages demanded, but instead included a demand for damages in
an amount to be proved at trial.  Due to the early stage of this
case, it is not possible to make meaningful estimates, if any, of
the amount or range of loss that could result from this case at
this time.  The case was transferred on the Company's motion to a
Multi-District Litigation proceeding in South Carolina and a
status conference was held on April 22, 2011.  This case is
currently stayed until a decision is made on motions pending in a
similar class action against an unrelated party.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Extra Sweet Pineapple Litigation Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from numerous lawsuits in various states relating to
Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples, 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 1, 2011.

On August 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two
of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  This consolidated action was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and
indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
from March 1, 1996, through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual
consumers.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims for: (i)
monopolization and attempted monopolization; (ii) restraint of
trade; (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (iv) unjust
enrichment.  On May 27, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a
motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for
unjust enrichment.  On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint
motion for class certification.  On February 20, 2008, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect
purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct
purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization, which was uncontested by the Company's
subsidiaries.  Also on February 20, 2008, the court granted the
motion of the Company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct
purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the
motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the
basis of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the indirect purchasers.  On August 13, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' remaining claims.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion on October 6, 2008, which the Company's subsidiaries
replied to on December 8, 2008.  On September 30, 2009, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Company's
subsidiaries.  On October 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  On November 3, 2010, the appellate court affirmed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company's subsidiaries.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On November 9,
2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended
complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation
of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification, which appeal remains
pending.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003.  The only
surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only
to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12,
2006.  On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on
January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11,
2009.

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


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaiian Suit Ruling Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final judgment dismissing all remaining claims
and terminating a purported class action in Hawaii against Fresh
Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries remains 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
April 1, 2011

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in
Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to
Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining U.S.
subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the
remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment dismissing
all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on
July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.


GMX RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 17 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of GMX Resources, Inc., pursuant or traceable to the
company's stock offerings on July 17, 2008, May 13, 2009, and
October 22, 2009.  The lawsuit seeks to recover investors' damages
from violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the GMX Resources class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's
Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Laurence Rosen,
Esq., or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may
also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that GMX Resources violated the securities
laws by issuing false financial statements to investors in the
stock offerings on July 17, 2008, May 13, 2009, and October 22,
2009.  On March 11, 2010, the company disclosed that its full year
2008 and quarterly 2009 financial statements were inaccurate and
must be restated.  The company also warned that investors could no
longer rely on its financial statements.  GMX subsequently
restated its financial statements to correct for the method used
to record full cost pool impairment charges and related deferred
income taxes.  As a result of the restatement, the company's net
loss for fiscal year 2008 was $124.6 million as compared to the
originally reported $81.7 million.

GMX Resources share price has declined substantially since the
stock offerings and investors in the stock offerings have suffered
significant damages.

If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

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


GREAT SOUTHERN: More Than 200 Investors Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that thousands of investors have joined a class
action against the failed agribusiness, Great Southern Managed
Investment Scheme.

The company, which had timber plantations near Albany and Bunbury,
went into administration in 2009 with debts of $700 million.

More than 2,000 of the estimated 8,000 investors who lost money in
the collapse are seeking damages from Great Southern.

They say the company did not disclose the risks associated with
managed investment schemes and the company's poor financial
performance.

The action will also question Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Javelin
Asset Management and Great Southern Finance as to why they issued
loans to investors in Great Southern.

The case is due to return to court on May 27.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Antitrust Class Suit Still Pending in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint filed against Huntsman Corporation in
Maryland remains pending, 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.

Huntsman has been named as a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust suits alleging that the Company and its
co-defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002
and the present.  The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010.  The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal).  Together with its co-defendants, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the litigation which the Court denied on
March 29, 2011.  No trial date has been set.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Discovery in "Polyether Polyols" Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in connection with the class action lawsuits
filed against Huntsman Corporation in Kansas, 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.

Huntsman Corporation has been named as a defendant in civil class
action antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 it
conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of
MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems sold in the U.S.
in violation of the federal Sherman Act.  These cases are
consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict
litigation known as In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyol defendants
have also been named as defendants in three civil antitrust suits
brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products
that opted out of the class certified in MDL No. 1616.  While
these opt out plaintiffs make similar claims as the class
plaintiffs, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims
of improper activity outside the class period.  Accordingly, the
relevant time frame for these cases is 1994-2004.  These cases are
referred to as the "direct action cases".

Merits discovery was consolidated in MDL No. 1616 for both the
class and direct action cases and is ongoing.  The trial is
currently scheduled for September 2012.

Two purported class action cases filed May 5 and 17, 2006 pending
in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Canada and Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, by direct
purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols and by indirect
purchasers of these products remain largely dormant although the
plaintiff in one case filed papers seeking class certification.
The class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2011.  A
purported class action case filed February 15, 2002 by purchasers
of products containing rubber and urethanes products and pending
in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco is stayed
pending resolution of MDL No. 1616.  Finally, the Company was
named in a proposed third amended complaint by indirect purchasers
of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols and polyester polyols pending
against Bayer and Chemtura in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The matter has been dismissed. The
plaintiffs in each of these matters make similar claims against
the defendants as the class plaintiffs in MDL No. 1616.


IOWA: Settles Jailed Sex Offenders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
state of Iowa would pay $35,000 in attorney's fees and make some
changes under a proposed settlement that would end a class-action
lawsuit brought by dangerous sex offenders who claimed their
living conditions in a state-run treatment program were too harsh.

A group of patients filed an amended complaint in federal court in
2007 in which they claimed the conditions at the Civil Commitment
Unit for Sex Offenders in Cherokee, Iowa amounted to cruel and
unusual punishment, violating their constitutional rights.  They
complained about overcrowding, long lines to use the bathroom, hot
food that was served cold and inadequate access to medical care
and exercise.

U.S. District Judge Donald O'Brien certified the claims as a
class-action lawsuit in 2009 over the objections of the state,
which argued that the complaints were too broad and vague to
qualify.  Rather than go to trial as scheduled in August, state
officials and an attorney for the sex offenders reached a proposed
settlement that was distributed to parties last month and released
to The Associated Press.  Judge O'Brien is scheduled to hold a
hearing June 22 to determine whether to sign off on the plan.

Under the proposal, the state would replace a broken treadmill and
ensure at least one piece of exercise equipment was always
available, install a bathroom in a courtyard for the patients to
use, and make more legal materials available to those who are
representing themselves in court.  A policy change would give
patients greater ability to appeal disciplinary actions that
reduce their progress on the five-step program.

State officials argue in the settlement that they have always
maintained an adequate level of care for patients and have not
violated their rights, but would agree to changes to avoid
"protracted and adversarial litigation."  The plaintiffs also
admitted that some of their initial claims did not withstand legal
scrutiny following further research.

Patients living in the unit have been declared too dangerous to be
released into the public following the completion of their prison
sentences for sex crimes.  They could be released if they complete
the rehabilitation program, but no one has successfully done so
since the unit opened in 1999.  More than a dozen have died or
been released as a result of legal decisions, said Roger Munns, a
spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services, which runs
the center.

Mr. Munns said the changes would not make it easier to complete
the program, which he called "a rigorous process designed to make
sure that anybody who emerges from that unit is no longer a threat
to society."  He said the settlement was proposed because its cost
would be less than that of taking the case to trial.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Patrick Ingram, Esq., of Iowa City,
would be paid $35,000 for his work on the case.  He did not
immediately return a voice message Tuesday.

The settlement says several steps have already been taken to
address specific complaints by patients.  They include installing
"sound-reducing door sweeps" in rooms where patients make
telephone calls to give them more privacy, and ending the use of a
restraint device known as the "black box" during transportation
that patients said hurt their hands and wrists.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action complaint filed in Florida, 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 November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Aluchua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in
neighborhoods adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant
in Gainesville.  The complaint named the Company, Koppers Inc.,
Beazer East and several other parties as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that chemicals and contaminants from the plant
have contaminated plaintiffs' properties, have caused property
damage and have placed residents and owners of the properties at
an elevated risk of exposure to the alleged chemicals.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages for
diminution in property values and loss of use and enjoyment.  The
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010, and plaintiffs have
requested that the case be remanded back to state court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated.  The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined.  Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


LIVE NATION: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
A California court granted a motion for partial summary judgment
filed by Live Nation Entertainment Inc. in connection with the
putative class action lawsuits brought against the Company,
according to its May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in U.S. District Court.  The plaintiff, on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain concert ticket
purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the Company nationwide caused artificially
high ticket prices.  In August 2003, the District Court ruled in
the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class certification
motion.  The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In
January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the plaintiff
then dismissed her action that same month.

Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts
throughout the country, making claims substantially similar to
those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
punitive and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  The Company has filed
its answers in some of these actions and has denied liability.

In April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification.  In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets.  In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In February 2008, the Company
filed with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration of its
October 2007 class certification order.  In October 2010, the
District Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration and
lifted the stay of all proceedings.  In February 2011, the Company
filed with the District Court a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations.  In April 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to this matter
could be incurred by the Company in a future period, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this
time.  Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the validity of
the claims and damages asserted against the Company.  As a result,
the Company is currently unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for this matter.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.


LIVE NATION: Plaintiffs to File Motion to Approve Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for preliminary approval of an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc.'s
ticketing business is expected to be filed this month, 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 October 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's
charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that
its failure to disclose on its website that the charges contain a
profit component is unlawful.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the
total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order-
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiff later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiff filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first two causes of action, which
allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit
component in shipping and order processing fees.  The class would
consist of California consumers who purchased tickets through
Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to present.  The Court denied
certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees are unconscionably high.  In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal,
and plaintiffs also filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Superior Court's class certification order.  In April 2010, the
Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's class certification order, and the Court of Appeal
denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of Mandate.  In June 2010,
the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of
Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010
order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and
enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a
nationwide class on the first two claims.  In September 2010,
Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes
of action in the Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs
filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative
defenses asserted by Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster
filed its Motion to Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provides for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims set forth therein.  In April 2011, the
parties entered into a long form agreement memorializing their
settlement.  The settlement remains subject to preliminary and
final approval by the Court.  The plaintiffs are currently
expected to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval in
May 2011.  Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter, but have agreed to the settlement in order to
eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, among other
things, Ticketmaster will pay the fees of the claims administrator
as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain costs that
are approved by the Court and subject to a set maximum, and class
members who meet certain conditions will be entitled to receive
from Ticketmaster a cash payment and/or discounts off one or more
future ticket purchases.  The individual and aggregate values of
each option are subject to set maximums.  Ticketmaster will also
make certain changes to disclosures on its website.  As of March
31, 2011, the Company has accrued $21.2 million, its best estimate
of the probable costs associated with this settlement.  This
liability includes an estimated redemption rate.  Any difference
between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual
redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement
amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be
material.


LIVE NATION: Consumer Class Action Suits Still Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five putative consumer class action complaints filed against Live
Nation Entertainment Inc.'s ticketing business remain pending in
Canada, 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 February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action.  Each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow
website at prices higher than face value.  The plaintiffs
characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's
Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the
Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-
scalping laws.  Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the class.  While it is reasonably possible
that a loss related to this matter could be incurred by the
Company in a future period, the Company does not believe that a
loss is probable of occurring at this time.  Considerable
uncertainty remains regarding the validity of the claims and
damages asserted against the Company.  As a result, the Company is
currently unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
for this matter.  The Company intends to vigorously defend all
claims in all of the actions.


LIVE NATION: Awaits Approval of Class Action Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment Inc. is awaiting court approval of an
agreement to settle a consolidated class action complaint filed
against its ticketing business in California, 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.

From February through June 2009, eleven purported class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow in
U.S. District Courts in California, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  The lawsuits allege that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully deceived consumers by,
among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to
TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that
tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to
purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on
TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com.  The plaintiffs
further claim violation of the consumer protection laws by
Ticketmaster's alleged "redirecting" of consumers from
Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com, thereby engaging in false
advertising and an unfair business practice by deceiving consumers
into inadvertently purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts
greater than face value.  The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster
has been unjustly enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory
damages, a refund to every class member of the difference between
tickets' face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an
injunction preventing Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair
business practices with TicketsNow and attorney fees and costs.

In July 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in
September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its answer the
following month.  In July 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment.  In April 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation
wherein they stated that they have agreed on all material terms of
a proposed settlement.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company has
accrued $2.1 million, its best estimate of the probable costs
associated with this settlement.  This liability includes an
estimated redemption rate.  Any difference between the Company's
estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it
experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, it
does not expect this difference to be material.


LOOKSMART LTD: Sets Excess Settlement Proceeds as Accrued Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 14, 2005, LookSmart Ltd. was served with the second
amended complaint in a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of Miller County, Arkansas.  The complaint named eleven search
engines and web publishers as defendants, including the Company,
and alleged breach of contract, restitution/unjust
enrichment/money had and received, and civil conspiracy claims in
connection with contracts allegedly entered into with plaintiffs
for Internet pay-per-click advertising.  The named plaintiffs on
the second amended complaint were Lane's Gifts and Collectibles,
L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4
Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations.

On July 26, 2006, the Court approved a class settlement among
plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain defendants who
display Google advertisements on their networks.  The Google
Settlement purports to release Google of all claims and also
purports to release certain defendants, including the Company, for
any claims associated with the display of Google advertisements on
their networks.  On February 29, 2008, the court approved a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to settle the matter in its
entirety.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company
established a Settlement Fund in the amount of approximately $2.5
million allocated as follows: (a) a Class Member Fund of
approximately $2.0 million in advertising credits, (b) the Fees
Award to Class Counsel of approximately $0.6 million, and (c) an
Incentive Award to the three Class Representatives of an
immaterial amount that was paid.  On April 7, 2008, the Company
paid approximately $0.6 million of legal fees to the plaintiff's
counsel representing the Fees Award to Class Counsel.  On April
29, 2008, the Company began to issue advertising credits to the
Class Members who filed timely claims.  The deadline for
submitting claims for advertising credits expired on April 29,
2009.

The Company recorded an estimate in accrued liabilities of the
amount of the loss on settlement which management determined was
probable and estimable during the year ended December 31, 2007.
During 2007, the Company recovered settlement proceeds from its
insurance carrier which exceeded the recorded estimate of the
amount of loss on settlement.  Due to the uncertainty relating to
the ultimate settlement amount, the excess settlement proceeds
remain as an accrued liability at March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010, on the Company's Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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


MACK TRUCKS: To Settle Retirees' Class Action for $525 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Mack Trucks Inc. and its parent,
Volvo, agreed to pay $525 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
filed by more than 9,300 retirees of the North Carolina truck
maker after they challenged potential reductions to their lifetime
health benefits.

The Legal Intelligencer reported on May 17 that Senior U.S.
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick gave preliminary approval of the
settlement.  A hearing is Sept. 7 to decide if the settlement is
fair and reasonable.

The suit was filed in Michigan after Mack sought a ruling that
lifetime benefits of its retirees were not vested and could be
modified or eliminated.  Both cases were consolidated in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


MELA SCIENCES: Consolidated Amended Complaint Pending in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated complaint filed by plaintiffs in the
securities class action lawsuit against Mela Sciences, Inc., 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 31, 2011.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010, and the other on
January 20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy
Steigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin
Slove and Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo,
Richard I. Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11-cv-00429-JFM.
These three securities class actions were consolidated into one
action on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM.  The securities class
action plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, alleging, among other things, that defendants made
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's product,
MelaFind(R), and its prospects for FDA approval, on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from February 13, 2009, through November 16, 2010, and seek
unspecified damages.  On May 2, 2011, the securities class action
plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint, alleging
similar claims to their prior complaints.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with certainty
the eventual outcome of this litigation.  An adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and its
business could be materially harmed.


NARA BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Nara Bancorp, Inc., has been named defendant in a shareholder
class suit over the Company's merger deal with Center Financial
Corporation, the Company disclosed in its May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The merger deal refers to the definitive agreement entered by Nara
Bancorp on December 9, 2010, to merge with Center Financial in an
all stock transaction valued at $285.7 million.  The boards of
directors of both companies each unanimously approved the Center
Merger.  The consummation of the Center Merger is subject to
regulatory approval, the approval of the shareholders of both Nara
Bancorp and Center Financial, and other customary closing
conditions.

On May 2, 2011, a purported shareholder class action was filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court against Center Financial, the directors
of Center Financial, and Nara Bancorp, captioned Rational
Strategies Fund vs. Jin Chul Jhung, et, al, Center Financial
Corporation, and Nara Bancorp, Inc., Case No. BC460783.  The
Complaint alleges the directors of Center Financial breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty, in approving the
proposed merger of Center Financial and Nara Bancorp, and that all
defendants failed to properly disclose material information in the
registration statement relating to the merger that has been filed
with the SEC.  In addition, it alleges that Nara Bancorp aided and
abetted the Center Financial directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorneys fees, interest and costs.

Nara Bancorp, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware in 2000, is a bank holding company, headquartered in Los
Angeles, California, offering a full range of commercial banking
and certain consumer financial services through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nara Bank.  The Bank has branches in California, New
York and New Jersey as well as a Loan Production Office in Texas.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Accused of Violating Consumer Fraud Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas
Company, is facing three class action lawsuits alleging that its
marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services appliance
warranty and service plans and Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
according to the Company's May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

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


PALM'S CASINO: Sued Over Failure to Post ATM Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against The Palm's Casino and
Truck Stop Inc. for allegedly failing to post notice of the
imposition of a fee after a money withdrawal from its ATM.

Claiming violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
Dennis Weese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action against The Palm's Casino and Truck
Stop Inc. on May 6 in federal court in New Orleans.

Mr. Weese states he was charged a $3 fee to withdraw money from
the ATM located at 8001 A West St. Bernard Hwy., in Arabi, on
March 9.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an award of statutory
damages, attorney's fees and costs, disgorgement of all revenue
obtained from the electronic fund transfers.

Mr. Weese is represented by:

          Bruce C. Betzer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE C. BETZER
          3129 Bore Street
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: 504-264-9523

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-01086


RIGHTHAVEN LLC: Accused of Extortion by Web Site Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that BuzzFeed, one of
the Web site operators accused of copyright infringement by
Righthaven LLC has retaliated, hitting the Las Vegas company with
a class-action counterclaim seeking to represent defendants in all
57 Righthaven cases in Colorado.


While the counterclaim mentions all 275 Righthaven lawsuits, it
covers only those filed in Colorado.

The class-action counterclaim alleges that defendants in all the
Righthaven lawsuits "are victims of extortion litigation by
Righthaven, which has made such extortion litigation a part of
its, if not its entire, business model."

"As a result of Righthaven's unlawful actions, class plaintiffs
and members of the proposed class were forced either to fight
needless litigation or to pay Righthaven a settlement fee, which
they would not have had to pay, had Righthaven engaged in
legitimate business practices," charges the counterclaim, which
specifically accuses Righthaven of violating Colorado's law
against unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The counterclaim says Righthaven has victimized defendants by
failing to send takedown notices prior to suing, by threatening to
take their Web site domain names when that's not provided for
under the federal Copyright Act, by falsely claiming it owns the
copyrights at issue and by failing to investigate jurisdictional
and fair use issues before suing, among other things.

The claim seeks an adjudication that Righthaven's copyright
infringement lawsuits amount to unfair and deceptive trade
practices under Colorado law, an injunction permanently enjoining
Righthaven from continuing the alleged unfair and deceptive trade
practices, an unspecified financial award to the class-action
plaintiffs for damages as well as their costs and attorney's fees.

BuzzFeed is represented by attorneys with the Denver office of the
law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.  That firm also has
a busy Las Vegas office and is usually known for corporate,
bankruptcy, casino industry and natural resources legal work and
litigation.

Righthaven is the copyright enforcer for the Las Vegas Review-
Journal and the Denver Post.  It has filed 274 suits against Web
sites, bloggers and message-board posters over material from those
newspapers since March 2010.  The 275th suit was filed over sports
betting material that didn't involve either newspaper.

The counterclaim is at least the eighth filed against Righthaven.
The copyright enforcement company has already lost two Nevada
cases on fair use rulings and faces challenges to its standing to
sue over Review-Journal material, with a federal judge in Las
Vegas saying it appears Righthaven does not have that right.

BuzzFeed separately denied the copyright infringement allegations
against it, saying they are barred by Righthaven's lack of
standing to sue as the Denver Post is the real party-in-interest,
lack of jurisdiction of the Colorado court over New York-based
BuzzFeed, fair use, the First Amendment, copyright misuse, implied
license and other things.

The implied license defense says the suit over a Denver Post TSA
pat-down photo is barred because the Denver Post granted a license
to BuzzFeed and others to use the photo through "links and
features encouraging the sharing of the work via: (1) e-mailing
the story; (2) recommending the article on Facebook; (3) using the
'Bookmark & Share' feature to share the article on more than 330
Web sites and social media outlets; and (4) linking the article on
Twitter."

In its March 30 lawsuit against BuzzFeed, Righthaven included a
court exhibit showing the Denver Post photo was used on multiple
occasions on the Web site along with some sexual commentary about
the TSA agent touching the passenger in the photo as the passenger
was patted down.

A request for comment on the counterclaim was placed with
Righthaven.


SDT WASTE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
several employees of a Louisiana waste removal company have filed
a proposed class action claiming they were not paid for all hours
worked and if they had complained about the treatment, they would
be fired.

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Tanya Lackey,
Dale Nicolini, James Bold, Robert Gay, Alfred Hamilton and John
Smith and Larry Swan, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, filed suit against SDT Waste & Debris
Services, Sidney D. Torres IV, Jason McDaniel and Henry Gonlag on
May 6 in federal court in New Orleans.

The plaintiffs are all either former or current employees of STD
employed as hoppers, mechanics, dispatchers or truck drivers
working out of SDT's facility in Chalmette.  According to the
complaint, the employees worked five to six days per week and more
than 40 hours per week.

Despite being unable to take time for eating a regular meal, the
employees were instructed to deduct 30 minutes from each day's
worked hours for an unpaid lunch period.  The employees state that
they were routinely advised that if they stopped working in order
to eat lunch, they would be fired.  The lawsuit states that some
employees were terminated after they complained about the failure
to be paid for all hours in which they worked.  Other employees
were instructed to operate the trucks in an unsafe condition in
violation of state law.

The lawsuit is asking for an award of overtime pay for all
putative collection action members, an award of liquidated
damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerald J. Huffman, Jr., Esq.
          Susan R. Laporte, Esq.
          CURRY & FRIEND, PLC
          Whitney Bank Building, Suite 1200
          228 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-524-8556
          E-mail: geraldhuffman@curryandfriend.com
                  susanlaporte@curryandfriend.com

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-01087


SMART BALANCE: "Nucoa" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Smart Balance Inc. related to its Nucoa(R)
stick margarine products remains pending in California, according
to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Smart Balance,
Inc., in the Federal District Court for the Central District in
California in Santa Ana, California.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, violations of California's unfair competition law,
false advertising, and consumer remedies act and seeks to identify
all similarly situated plaintiffs and certify them in a class
action.  This suit relates to the Company's Nucoa(R) stick
margarine products, which represented less than 1% of sales in
2010.  The Company is in the process of vigorously defending
itself against this suit.  No matter what the outcome, the Company
does not expect that the resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on its business.


SOLUTIA INC: St. Clair County Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia
Inc., Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants
alleging the contamination of the plaintiff's property from
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in
Sauget, Illinois (including the Company's W.G. Krummrich site in
Sauget, Illinois).  The proposed class action is comprised of
residents who live within a two-mile radius of the Sauget
facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical
monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal
of contaminants from their property.  This action is one of
several lawsuits (primarily filed by the same plaintiffs' counsel)
over the past year regarding alleged historical contamination from
the W.G. Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately
1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in
St. Clair County arising out of alleged contamination from the
defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional individual
lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs were filed
between January and April 2010 in Madison County, Illinois,
alleging that plaintiffs suffered illnesses resulting from
exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous
substances.  Lastly, in June 2010, a second purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri
against the same defendants alleging the contamination of the
plaintiffs' property from PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in
Sauget, Illinois and from the Company's now-closed Queeny plant in
St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical
monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal
of alleged contaminants from their property.  The proposed class
members include residents exclusively within the state of
Missouri.

Upon assessment of the terms of the settlement agreement that the
Company entered into with Monsanto in connection with the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 and other defenses available
to it, the Company believes the probability of an unfavorable
outcome to it on the St. Clair County, Illinois and related
litigation against the Company is remote and, accordingly, the
Company has not recorded a loss contingency.  Nonetheless, if it
were subsequently determined these matters are not within the
meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the Monsanto
Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to the Company were
unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible the Company would be
liable for an amount which cannot be estimated but which could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in 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.


SOLUTIA INC: Remains a Defendant in Putnam County Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against the
Company's subsidiary Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto Company and Akzo
Nobel (Solutia Inc. is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to
dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now
closed.  The relevant production activities at the facility
occurred during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the
facility and well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint
venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently
transferred to the Company in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value,
medical monitoring and other equitable relief.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009,
over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by
individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named
Solutia and Flexsys as defendants, and one additional complaint
was filed in January 2011.

The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while
Flexsys was a joint venture between the Company and Akzo Nobel,
and any potential damages in these cases would be evenly
apportioned between the Company and Akzo Nobel to the extent such
claims are determined not to be Legacy Tort Claims.

Upon assessment of the terms of the settlement agreement that the
Company entered into with Monsanto in connection with the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 and other defenses available
to it, the Company believes the probability of an unfavorable
outcome to it on the Putnam County, West Virginia and related
litigation against the Company is remote and, accordingly, the
Company has not recorded a loss contingency.  Nonetheless, if it
were subsequently determined these matters are not within the
meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the Monsanto
Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to the Company were
unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible the Company would be
liable for an amount which cannot be estimated but which could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in 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.


STRYKER CORP: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stryker Corporation is still defending itself against a securities
class action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's
May 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In January 2010 a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007 and November 13,
2008, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2010 the lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan Southern Division. The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.


TELE NORTE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer FPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A. is awaiting a decision on its
motion for a change of venue in the class action lawsuit filed by
the Federal Prosecutor's Office in Brazil, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed
by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
the Company's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service
(Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor -- SAC) regulations
established by the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica).
The Company presented its defense and asked for a change of venue
to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where it is headquartered.
Other defendants have been named and await service of process.

The amount involved in this action is R$300 million.  As of
December 31, 2010, the Company deemed the risk of loss as possible
with respect to these lawsuits and has not made any provisions
with respect to this action since the Company is awaiting the
court's initial decision.


TELE NORTE: Customer Service Centers Suits' Appeals Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from decisions unfavorable to Tele Norte Leste
Participacoes S.A. in the class action lawsuits relating to its
customer service centers remain pending, according to the
Company's May 4, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in 69 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury in Brazil jointly with
certain consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer
service centers.  The lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable
to the Company in 24 of these civil class actions, and the Company
has appealed these decisions.

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had recorded provisions in
the amount of R$182 million for those claims in respect of which
it deemed the risk of loss as probable.


TRADESTATION GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Merger Deal With Monex
----------------------------------------------------------------
TradeStation Group, Inc., has been named a defendant in a
purported class suit related to the Company's transaction with
Monex Group, Inc., according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 3, 2011, a Direct Shareholder Class Action Complaint Based
on Breach of Fiduciary Duties titled Don Coishi, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs.
TradeStation Group, Inc., Salomon Sredni, Denise E. Dickins,
Michael W. Fipps, Nathan D. Leight, Charles F. Wright, Felix 2011
Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Monex Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
11-10195, was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  The Coishi
Complaint names as defendants the Company and the members of its
Board of Directors, as well as Monex Group, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Felix 2011 Acquisition Sub, Inc. -- the Merger
Sub.  The Coishi Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's directors have violated applicable law by breaching
their fiduciary duties (including the duties of loyalty, due care
and candor) owed to the Plaintiff and the proposed class of
holders of the Company's common stock (other than the Defendants
and affiliates thereof) in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Monex Group and Merger Sub through a
cash tender offer followed by a second step merger, and further
alleges that the Company, Monex Group and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of the fiduciary duties.  The Coishi
Complaint also alleges that the Transaction yields an unfair
price.  The Coishi Complaint seeks injunctive relief (including to
enjoin the consummation of the Transaction), rescission of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 20, 2011, among the
Company, Monex Group and Merger Sub and an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and expenses, in addition to other relief.  The
Company believes the allegations of the Coishi Complaint lack
merit and will contest the action vigorously.

TradeStation Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
online brokerage firm covering equities, equity options, futures,
and forex transactions. The Company is headquartered in
Plantation, Fla.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against
purported securities class actions filed in Indiana.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, entitled Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming the Company and two of its executive officers as
defendants.  The complaint related to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008.  The complaint alleged that
the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio and the Durom Cup.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
December 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on February 23, 2009.  On December 1, 2009,
the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the consolidated complaint.  On January 28, 2011,
the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint and dismissed the case.  On February 25,
2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, entitled Dewald v.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and employees as defendants.  The
complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009.  The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court.  On June 12, 2009,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Fund case.

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
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit, and the
Company and the individual defendants intend to defend them
vigorously.

Zimmer Holdings Inc. is a publicly traded medical device company.
The Company designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
orthopaedic reconstructive, spinal and trauma devices, dental
implants and related orthopaedic surgical products.


* Jacoby & Meyers Files Class Actions v. NJ, Ct. & NY Justices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that personal
injury powerhouse Jacoby & Meyers filed federal class actions
against the justices of courts in New Jersey, Connecticut and New
York, challenging what the firm calls an "antiquated" state ethics
law that forbids lawyers from practicing in firms that are at
least partly owned by nonlawyers.

Rule 5.4 of the state's Rules of Professional Conduct "is impeding
law firms' ability to compete in today's global marketplace and
restricting the public's access to affordable, quality
representation," according to the complaint.

The self-proclaimed "pioneers" of "legal services for the masses"
say this restriction unconstitutionally blocks them, and other
lawyers, from exchanging a stake of their firms for capital.

Ultimately, they say, the public has to foot the bill since the
restriction "dramatically impedes access to legal services for
those otherwise unable to afford them."

"As a result, critical sources of funding are unavailable to a
majority of lawyers in New Jersey (and elsewhere) which
dramatically impedes access to legal service for those otherwise
unable to afford them," according to the complaint.

"By this action, Jacoby & Meyers seeks to free itself of the
shackles that currently encumber its ability to raise outside
financing and to ensure that American law firms are able to
compete on the global stage," the 23-page complaint also states.

Jacoby & Meyers is a New York-based firm of nearly 100 employees
with two offices in New Jersey.

The class seeks an injunction and an order declaring that the
ethics rule violates the federal and state constitutions.

"The present system perpetuates economic inequity at every level
of practice," Jacoby & Meyers claims.  "The small practice does
not have access to the capital markets that the Wall Street firms
have and the Wall Street firms do not have access to the funding
sources that firms in the U.K. and Australia have."

In the U.K. and Australia, law firms are allowed to benefit from
nonlawyer equity, while the District of Columbia allows nonlawyers
to own up to 25% interest in a firm, according to the complaint.

While law firms have generally "self-financed their operations
through capital contributions, cash flow and bank loans," law
firms today need a new revenue source, according to the complaint.

"In these challenging economic times, these 'normal' channels for
capital infusion are either too expensive or unavailable to fund
Jacoby & Meyers' intended business plans," the firm says.

Without a "substantial infusion of new capital," Jacoby & Meyers
will have to put the kibosh on plans to hire more staff, improve
its offices and expand "within communities in which working-class,
blue-collar and immigrant families reside."

Noting that critics say nonlawyer investments will lead to "the
violation of clients' confidences, the erosion of lawyers'
independent judgment and the specter of a loss of
professionalism," Jacoby & Meyers calls such fears
unsubstantiated.

"There are innumerable ways in which to ensure that a lawyer's
professional 'independence of judgment' remains resolute,"
according to the complaint.

Jacoby & Meyers, a New York-based firm of nearly 100 employees,
has two offices in New Jersey.  It rose to prominence after airing
the nation's first television commercial advertising legal
services in the country.

The class seeks an injunction and an order declaring that the
ethics rule violates the federal and state constitutions.

Jacoby & Meyers made the same allegations against the judges of
the Connecticut Superior Court and the justices of New York state
courts.

A copy of the Complaint in Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices, LLP v. The
Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Case No. 11-cv-_____,
docketed as Doc. 11707 in Case No 33-av-00001 on May 18, 2011
(D. N.J.), is available at http://is.gd/yoTG53

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Meiselman, Esq.
          James R. Denlea, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Barry B. Cepelewicz, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 517-5000


                            *********

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  * * *