CAR_Public/110525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 102

                             Headlines

ACE LIMITED: Awaits Court Order on Motion to Dismiss N.J. Suit
ACE LIMITED: "Van Emden" Suit Still Stayed Pending N.J. Suit
ACE LIMITED: Continues to Defend Lloyd's-Related Suits in N.J.
ACXIOM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Arkansas
AFFINIA GROUP: Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7,225 Engle Progeny Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Remains Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Motion for Summary Judgment in 'Kraft' Still Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Argument In Bid To Dismiss "Brown" Suit Set for June

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Expects to Finalize Settlement Terms Soon
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Swiger" Suit
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swiger" Suit in Harrison County Still Stayed
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida
AT&T INC: Appeal From Final Judgment in "Stoffels" Suit Pending

AT&T INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Dismissal of "NSA" Suits
AT&T INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over "Illegal Fees"
BB&T CORP: Appeals From Class Certification Still Pending
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Mass.

BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Signs Deal to Settle Securities Class Suit
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: To Seek Court Okay of Managers' Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Still Defends Class Suits by Hourly Employees
CC MEDIA HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery in Suits vs. Units Ends
CENTURYLINK INC: Appeal From Qwest Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

CENTURYLINK INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Fulghum" Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Talks to Settle Fiber-Optic Suits Are Ongoing
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wage Class Suits Still Pending in California
CITY OF NEW YORK: Accused of Violations of State Civil Service Law
CITY OF NEW YORK: 2004 RNC Mass Arrest Class Action Certified

CLEAR CHANNEL: Discovery Underway in "Live Nation" Class Action
CYNOSURE INC: Certification Motion Pending in "Weitzner" Suit
DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend "Wage and Hour" Suit in Calif.
DAVITA INC: Unit Continues to Defend Against Blue Cross Claims
DAVITA INC: To Oppose Certification of Class in Employee Suit

DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Tasmanians File Class Action Over Hip Implant
DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Suits Over Early Cancellation Fees
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over No Tipping Policy
EMCORE CORP: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Hearing on Class Suit Deal Set for July 29

FORISTELL, MO: Former Officers File Class Action
GATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Judge Dismisses Autism Class Action
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Arizona Plaintiffs Appeal Order in Antitrust Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Unit Seeks to Appeal Certification in Dealers Suit

GRUBHUB LLC: Sued for Imposing Hidden Charges on Customer's Orders
HEALTH NET: Defends Class Actions Over Loss of PHI Server Drives
KINDER MORGAN: Kansas Court Says Deal in Consolidated Suit Final
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend "Fiber Optic" Suits
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Order on Appeal From Suit Dismissal

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Enters Settlement in "ERISA" Class Action
LIFE PARTNERS: Accused of Lying About Life Settlement Returns
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court Approves Settlement in IPO-Related Suit
LOOPNET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With CoStar
MACERICH COMPANY: Continues to Defend "Wage and Hour" Suit

MICHAELS STORES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Customer Data
OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Seeks Court Nod on Class Action Settlement
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend "McAllister" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Smoker Health" Suit Remains Pending

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing in "El-Roy" Suit Set for November 2011
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Yochkolovski" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Are Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Bourassa" Class Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Dorion" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Kunta" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "McDermid" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Semple" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit to Begin October 2011

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Begin October 2011
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Appeals From Decisions in 24 Cases Still Pending
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Awaits Initial Decision in Customer Service Suit
PRIDE INT'L: Settles Class Action Over Ensco Merger

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in "fostamatinib" Suit Still Pending
RIGHTHAVEN LLC: Legal Expert Raises Doubts on Counterclaim
SECURITIES AMERICA: Class Action Settlements Gets Preliminary OK
SIMOS SIMOS: Sued for Denying Benefits to Temporary Workers
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Hawaii

SKYWEST INC: ExpressJet-Related Class Suits Settled & Dismissed
SOLARWINDS INC: Says Claims in "Richardson" Suit Have No Merit
SONY: Canadians Join PlayStation Network Breach Class Action
SONY: Faces 18th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Obtains Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Age Discrimination Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in "Harkness" Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Expects Dismissal Plea Fully Briefed by Month-End
TASTY BAKING: Continues to Defend "Michelsen" Suit in Pennsylvania
TASTY BAKING: "Ringheiser" Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania

UMG RECORDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Music Download Royalties
VENTAS INC: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over NHP Acquisition
VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Is Ongoing in Suits vs. Florida Rock
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Removes "Hunter" TILA Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.

WARNER CHILCOTT: ACTONEL-Related Suits Remain Pending




                            *********


ACE LIMITED: Awaits Court Order on Motion to Dismiss N.J. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited is awaiting an MDL court's decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit concerning commercial
insurance pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's May 6,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., along with
a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of
federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey. On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee
benefit plans. The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE
has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE,
ACE INA Holdings, Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American Insurance Co.,
Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North
America. They allege that certain brokers and insurers, including
certain ACE entities, conspired to increase premiums and allocate
customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent
commissions. In addition, they allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
acted as intermediaries between brokers and insurers. Plaintiffs
also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary
insurance to the placement of such coverage with reinsurance
carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance broker
subsidiaries. The complaint asserts the following causes of action
against ACE: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust
law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' first two
attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead. The amended
complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial
Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, ACE,
and other insurers based on the same allegations as the other
claims but limited to excess casualty insurance. In 2007 the Court
granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' antitrust and
RICO claims with prejudice. The Court also declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims and
dismissed those claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On
August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part, and vacated,
in part, the District Court's previous dismissals with
instructions for further briefing at the District Court on remand.
Defendants have renewed their motions to dismiss, and the District
Court has indicated that it will issue a decision in early 2011.

As of May 5, 2011, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants' renewed
motions to dismiss. The Court has also not determined if this case
may proceed as a class action and has, therefore, not determined
the size or scope of any class. As a result, the Company is unable
to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this litigation.

ACE Limited, through its various subsidiaries, provides a broad
range of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide.
ACE operates through these business segments: Insurance - North
American, Insurance - Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and
Life.


ACE LIMITED: "Van Emden" Suit Still Stayed Pending N.J. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit captioned Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. remains stayed pending resolution
of the consolidated proceedings in New Jersey or until further
court order, according to ACE Limited's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In re Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al. (Case No. 05-0066A; Superior Court of
Massachusetts), a class action in Massachusetts, was filed on
January 13, 2005. Illinois Union Insurance Company is named. The
Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the Court.

As of May 5, 2011, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages in this case. The proceedings were stayed at a
very early stage, before ACE could challenge the sufficiency of
the claims with, for example, a motion to dismiss. As a result,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation.

ACE Limited, through its various subsidiaries, provides a broad
range of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide.
ACE operates through these business segments: Insurance ? North
American, Insurance ? Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and
Life.


ACE LIMITED: Continues to Defend Lloyd's-Related Suits in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's London subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in
two putative class action lawsuits captioned Lincoln Adventures
LLC et al. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
Members of Syndicates 0033 et al. and Supreme Auto Transport LLC
et al. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London, et al.,
according to ACE Limited's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Lincoln Adventures LLC et al. v. Those Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London Members of Syndicates 0033 et al. (Case No. 07-
60991; D.N.J.) was originally filed in the Southern District of
Florida on July 13, 2007. Supreme Auto Transport LLC et al. v.
Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London, et al. (Case No. 07-
6703; D.N.J.) was originally filed in the Southern District of New
York on July 25, 2007. Lloyd's of London Syndicate 2488 AGM, along
with a number of other Lloyd's of London Syndicates and various
brokers, are named in both actions. The allegations in these
putative class-action lawsuits are similar to the allegations in
the consolidated federal actions, although these lawsuits focus on
alleged conduct within the London insurance market.

ACE Limited, through its various subsidiaries, provides a broad
range of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide.
ACE operates through these business segments: Insurance ? North
American, Insurance ? Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and
Life.


ACXIOM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Acxiom Corporation between October 27, 2010, and March 30,
2011, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/acxm

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements thereby artificially inflating the price of
the Company's securities.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its
international operations and was not operating according to plan
and failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its international operations.

On March 30, 2011, Acxiom issued a press release announcing the
resignation of its president and chief executive officer, John A.
Meyer, effective March 28, 2011, and the intention of Acxiom's
Chief Financial Officer, Christopher W. Wolf, to resign in the
second calendar quarter of 2011.  The Company further stated as a
result of poor performance of Acxiom's international operations,
Acxiom expected to record a non-cash impairment charge in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2011 in an amount between $50 and $90
million.  On this news, shares of Acxiom common stock dropped
approximately 22% to close at $13.50 on March 30, 2011.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 27,
2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.


AFFINIA GROUP: Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
A 90-day stay is currently in place in the class action lawsuit
filed against Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc.'s
subsidiary, Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, class action lawsuit was filed by S&E Quick
Lube Distributors, Inc. of Utah against several auto parts
manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for
replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  Several auto
parts companies are named as defendants, including Champion
Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp.
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries.  The lawsuit is currently
pending as a consolidated Multi-District Litigation Proceeding in
Chicago, Illinois, because of multiple "tag-along" filings in
several jurisdictions.  Two suits have also been filed in the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.  Wix Filtration, along
with other named defendants, have filed various motions to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints, which were denied by the court in December
2009.  Several defendants, including Wix Filtration, refiled
motions to dismiss based upon plaintiff's most recent amended
complaint.  The court denied those motions in September 2010.
Discovery in the action continues.  Significantly, the deposition
of plaintiffs' main witness occurred in December 2010 and did not
implicate Wix in any overt acts of price fixing.  The U.S.
Department of Justice moved to intervene and stay the proceedings
for three months while they complete their grand jury
investigation.  The motion was granted by the Court and a 90-day
stay is currently in place.

The Company believes that Wix Filtration did not engage in any
improper conduct and in any event did not have significant sales
in this particular market at the relevant time periods so the
Company does not expect the lawsuit to have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition or results of operations.  The
Company adds that it intends to vigorously defend this matter.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
purported securities class action lawsuit alleging that the
Company made false or misleading statements, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and
executives alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On February 17,
2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.  HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Co.,
Canaccord Genuity, Cowen & Co., and Lazard Capital are also
defendants in this action.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material facts, about the Company's business,
financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly
relating to the Scient'x transaction and the Company's financial
guidance following the closing of the acquisition.  The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified relief.  The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against this
complaint, however no assurances can be given as to the timing or
outcome of this lawsuit.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7,225 Engle Progeny Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from approximately
7,225 Engle Progeny cases (3,316 state court cases and 3,939
federal court cases) pending as of April 25, 2011, according to
the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

As of April 26, 2011, 23 Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have
resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle
decision.  Thirteen verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs
and ten verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA.  In addition,
there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have
resulted in new trials as of April 26, 2011.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of
$100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review.  As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a
separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the
outcome of the judicial review, will be paid to the court and the
court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent
with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  In July 2001, PM USA also
placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account, which
was returned to PM USA in December 2007.  In addition, the $100
million bond related to the case has been discharged.  In
connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a $500 million
pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of earnings for the
quarter ended March 31, 2001.  In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified, and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate.  The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations.  In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685,
which represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to
the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members.  The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class.  In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) relating
to agreement to misrepresent information, and added the finding
that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of
sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact
made by defendants.  In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court
issued the mandate from its revised opinion.  Defendants then
filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
requesting that the court address legal errors that were
previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed
either by the Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida
Supreme Court.  In February 2007, the Third District Court of
Appeal denied defendants' motion.  In May 2007, defendants' motion
for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of
appellate review was denied by the Third District Court of Appeal.
In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court.  In October 2007, the United
States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition.  In November
2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition
for rehearing from the denial of their petition for writ of
certiorari.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008.  As of
April 25, 2011, approximately 7,225 cases (3,316 state court cases
and 3,939 federal court cases) were pending against PM USA or
Altria Group, Inc., asserting individual claims by or on behalf of
approximately 8,885 plaintiffs (4,947 state court plaintiffs and
3,938 federal court plaintiffs).  It is possible that some of
these cases are duplicates.  Some of these cases have been removed
from various Florida state courts to the federal district courts
in Florida, while others were filed in federal court.  In July
2007, PM USA and other defendants requested that the multi-
district litigation panel order the transfer of all such cases
pending in the federal courts, as well as any other Engle progeny
cases that may be filed, to the Middle District of Florida for
pretrial coordination.  The panel denied this request in December
2007.  In October 2007, attorneys for plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate all pending and future cases filed in the state trial
court in Hillsborough County.  The court denied this motion in
November 2007.  In February 2008, the trial court decertified the
class except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and
formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the
Florida Supreme Court's mandate.  In April 2008, the trial court
ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing
with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May
2001 bond stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from
the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive
damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle.  The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.  In July 2008, attorneys for a putative
former Engle class member petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to
permit members of the Engle class additional time to file
individual lawsuits.  The Florida Supreme Court denied this
petition in January 2009.


ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., is still
awaiting results of a petition for a writ of certiorari pending
with the Supreme Court in the Scott Class Action, according to
the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott
class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay
for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including Philip
Morris USA Inc., in connection with plaintiffs' medical monitoring
claims, but also found that plaintiffs could benefit from smoking
cessation assistance.  The jury also found that cigarettes as
designed are not defective but that the defendants failed to
disclose all they knew about smoking and diseases and marketed
their products to minors.  In May 2004, in the second phase of the
trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million
against all defendants, jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year
smoking cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs
the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment
interest accruing from the date the suit commenced.  PM USA's
share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been
allocated.  Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. Pursuant to a
stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order
setting the amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants
in accordance with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (the "bond cap law"), fixing
the amount of security in civil cases involving a signatory to the
MSA.  Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the
right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of
the bond on any grounds including the applicability or
constitutionality of the bond cap law.  In September 2004,
defendants collectively posted a bond in the amount of $50 million
($12.5 million of which was posted by PM USA).

In February 2007, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal
issued a ruling on defendants' appeal that, among other things:
affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the class;
struck certain of the categories of damages included in the
judgment, reducing the amount of the award by approximately $312
million; vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled
approximately $444 million as of February 15, 2007; and ruled that
the only class members who are eligible to participate in the
smoking cessation program are those who began smoking before, and
whose claims accrued by, September 1, 1988.  As a result, the
Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded the case for proceedings
consistent with its opinion, including further reduction of the
amount of the award based on the size of the new class.  In March
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected defendants' motion
for rehearing and clarification.  In January 2008, the Louisiana
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for
writ of certiorari.  In March 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
execute the approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment
interest or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to
submit revised damages figures.  Defendants filed a motion to have
judgment entered in favor of defendants based on accrual of all
class member claims after September 1, 1988 or, in the
alternative, for the entry of a case management order.  In April
2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to
stay proceedings and the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.  In June 2008,
the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in the amount of
approximately $280 million (subsequently changed to approximately
$264 million) and defendants filed a motion to enter judgment in
their favor dismissing the case entirely or, alternatively, to
enter a case management order for a new trial.  In July 2008, the
trial court entered an Amended Judgment and Reasons for Judgment
denying both motions, but ordering defendants to deposit into the
registry of the court the sum of $263,532,762 plus post-judgment
interest.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of
mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with
the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and in December
2008, the trial court entered an order permitting the appeal and
approving a $50 million bond for all defendants in accordance with
the Louisiana bond cap law.  In April 2009, plaintiffs filed a
cross-appeal seeking to reinstate the June 2004 judgment and to
award the medical monitoring rejected by the jury.

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued
a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the
defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal amended and, as amended,
affirmed the amended 2008 trial court judgment and ruled that,
although the trial court erred, the defendants have no right to a
trial to determine, among other things, those class members with
valid claims not barred by Louisiana law.  After conducting its
own independent review of the record, the Court of Appeal made its
own factual findings with respect to liability and the amount
owed, lowering the amount of the judgment to approximately $241
million, plus interest commencing July 21, 2008, the date of entry
of the amended judgment (which as of December 31, 2010 is
approximately $32 million).  In its decision, the Court of Appeal
disallowed approximately $80 million in post-judgment interest.
In addition, the Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal
requests for a medical monitoring program and reinstatement of
other components of the smoking cessation program.  The Court of
Appeal specifically reserved to the defendants the right to assert
claims to any unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination
of the smoking cessation program.  In June 2010, defendants and
plaintiffs filed separate writ of certiorari applications with the
Louisiana Supreme Court.  The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both
sides' applications.  In September 2010, upon defendants'
application, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the
judgment pending the defendants' filing and the Court's
disposition of the defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari.
The defendants filed their petition for a writ of certiorari in
December 2010, which remains pending.  As of March 31, 2011, PM
USA has recorded a provision of $26 million in connection with the
case and has recorded additional provisions of approximately $3.7
million related to accrued interest.


ALTRIA GROUP: Motion for Summary Judgment in 'Kraft' Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc.'s affiliate, Altria Client Services Inc., has a
pending motion for summary judgment in the Kraft Thrift Plan Case
in Illinois, according to the Company's April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Thrift Plan, a
defined contribution plan, filed a class action complaint on
behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift
Plan in July 2008 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Named
defendants in this action include Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
(now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain company committees
that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan.
Plaintiffs request, among other remedies, that defendants restore
to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses improperly incurred.  The
Altria Group, Inc., defendants deny any violation of ERISA or
other unlawful conduct and are defending the case vigorously.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.  In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.,
defendants.  In February 2010, the court granted a joint
stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without
prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria
Corporate Services, Inc.  Accordingly, the only claim remaining at
this time relates to the alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries
for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft
Thrift Plan investment options.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in
August 2010.  Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
January 21, 2011.

Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between Altria Group,
Inc. and Kraft, the Altria Group, Inc., defendants may be entitled
to indemnity against any liabilities incurred in connection with
this case.


ALTRIA GROUP: Argument In Bid To Dismiss "Brown" Suit Set for June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit under the California
Business and Professions Code against Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
is scheduled for June 21, 2011, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s
April 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was filed in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including
Philip Morris USA, Inc., and others, have violated California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding
unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices.  Class
certification was granted as to plaintiffs' claims that class
members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes
purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief.  In
September 2004, the trial court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims attacking defendants'
cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants' motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims based on allegedly
false affirmative statements.  Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing
was denied.  In March 2005, the court granted defendants' motion
to decertify the class based on a California law, which inter alia
limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who
have "suffered injury in fact" and "lost money or property" as a
result of defendant's alleged statutory violations.  In two July
2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court held Proposition 64
applicable to pending cases.  Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was
denied, and plaintiffs appealed.

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class.  In May 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that
was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the
trial court.  Defendants filed a rehearing petition in June 2009.
In August 2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants'
rehearing petition and issued its mandate.  In March 2010, the
trial court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order
granting partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to
plaintiffs' "Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions
issued since its order was issued, including the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs'
"Lights" claims.  Since the trial court's prior ruling
decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California
Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims
currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject,
however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives'
standing to assert their claims.  The class is defined as people
who, at the time they were residents of California, smoked in
California one or more cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and
April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and
advertising activities in California.  In July 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking collateral estoppel effect from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  In
September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
resolution of legal issues regarding restitutionary relief.  The
trial court denied both of plaintiffs' motions in November 2010.
In November 2010, defendants filed a motion seeking a
determination that Brown class members who were also part of the
class in Daniels (a previously disclosed consumer fraud case in
which the California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in PM
USA's favor based on preemption and First Amendment grounds) are
precluded by the Daniels judgment from recovering in Brown.  This
motion was denied in December 2010.  Defendants sought review of
this decision before the Fourth District Court of Appeal but were
denied review on March 11, 2011.  In December 2010, defendants
filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives
lack standing and are not typical or adequate to represent the
class.  On February 24, 2011, the trial court ruled on this motion
in the defendants' favor and vacated the previously scheduled
trial date.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied on April 13, 2011.  In addition, on April 13, 2011,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds
that plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend the complaint.
Argument on that motion is scheduled for June 21, 2011.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Expects to Finalize Settlement Terms Soon
------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company expects to document the terms
of a settlement it reached with plaintiffs in a putative class
action in California before the end of spring, according to the
Company's May 6, 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 in a putative class action lawsuit
wherein the Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of persons who
purchased certain American National proprietary deferred annuity
products in the State of California (Rand v. American National
Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, filed February 12, 2009). Plaintiff alleges that
American National violated the California Insurance, Business and
Professions, Welfare and Institutions, and Civil Codes through its
fixed and equity-indexed deferred annuity sales and marketing
practices by not sufficiently providing proper disclosure notices
on the nature of surrender fees, commissions and bonus features
and not considering the suitability of the product. Certain claims
raised by Plaintiff relate to sales of annuities to the elderly.
Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and rescissionary
and/or injunctive relief in an unspecified amount. In September
2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment for American
National due to the nonexistence of certain California Insurance
Code violations, and granted partial summary judgment against
American National as to whether the Plaintiff received a
disclosure notice required by the California Insurance Code.
Plaintiff contends that the alleged disclosure violation will
support a California Unfair Competition Law claim. The parties
negotiated a tentative agreement on financial settlement terms
between American National and potential class members and are
working on finalizing other specific terms to resolve this case.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2011, the Company reserved
$12,000,000 for this tentative agreement. Any such class
settlement must be reviewed and approved by the Court and will go
through other procedural steps before being finalized. The parties
anticipate documenting the terms before the end of spring 2011 and
presenting the terms to the Court shortly thereafter.

If the settlement is not finalized or accepted, the Company
maintains that it has meritorious defenses which will be
vigorously pursued. In such event, no prediction can be made as to
the probability or remoteness of Plaintiff's recovery, if any,
against the Company.

American National Insurance Company and its consolidated
subsidiaries offer a broad line of insurance coverage, including
individual and group life insurance, health insurance, annuities,
and property and casualty insurance.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Swiger" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P.'s subsidiary is awaiting final approval of
the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Samuel and
Brenda Swiger, according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 1996, a fire occurred at the residence of Samuel and Brenda
Swiger when propane that leaked from an underground line ignited.
In July 1998, the Swigers filed a class action lawsuit against
AmeriGas Propane, L.P., in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County,
West Virginia, in which they sought to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees,
for themselves and on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom
the defendants had installed propane gas lines, resulting from the
defendants' alleged failure to install underground propane lines
at depths required by applicable safety standards. On December 14,
2010, AmeriGas OLP and its affiliates entered into a settlement
agreement with the class, which was preliminarily approved by the
Circuit Court of Monongalia County on January 13, 2011.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership
that conducts a national propane distribution business through its
principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to
its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's
subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swiger" Suit in Harrison County Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. disclosed that Samuel and Brenda Swiger's
purported class action in Harrison County, West Virginia, is
stayed pending the Swigers' lawsuit in Monongalia County,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In 2005, the Swigers filed what purports to be a class action in
the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia against UGI
Corporation, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of
UGI and AmeriGas Propane, Inc., and their insurance carriers and
insurance adjusters. In the Harrison County lawsuit, the Swigers
are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Swigers have also requested
that the Court rule that insurance coverage exists under the
policies issued by the defendant insurance companies for damages
sustained by the members of the class in the Monongalia County
lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Harrison County has not certified
the class in the Harrison County lawsuit at this time and, in
October 2008, stayed that lawsuit pending resolution of the class
action lawsuit in Monongalia County. The Company believes it has
good defenses to the claims in this action.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership
that conducts a national propane distribution business through its
principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to
its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's
subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging that the Corporation unfairly collected
overdraft fees, according to its May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed against the Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, on April 6,
2010. The lawsuit is styled as a class action lawsuit with the
certification of the class pending. The suit alleges that the
Corporation unfairly assesses and collects overdraft fees and
seeks restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages, and costs. On April 23, 2010,
a Multi District Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer
order to consolidate this case into the overdraft fees Multi
District Litigation pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The
Corporation denies all claims and intends to vigorously defend
itself.


AT&T INC: Appeal From Final Judgment in "Stoffels" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment in AT&T, Inc.'s favor in a class
action lawsuit alleging ERISA violations filed by retirees remains
pending, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In May 2005, the Company was served with a purported class action
in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,
contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retirees
living outside their company's local service area, for telephone
service they purchased from another provider, is a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). In October 2006, the
Court certified two classes. The issue of whether the concession
is an ERISA pension plan was tried before the judge in November
2007. In May 2008, the court ruled that the concession was an
ERISA pension plan. The Company asked the court to certify this
ruling for interlocutory appeal, and in August 2008, the court
denied the Company's request. In May 2009, the Company filed a
motion for reconsideration with the trial court. That motion was
granted on January 14, 2011, and a final judgment has been entered
in the Company's favor. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes that an
adverse outcome having a material effect on the Company's
financial statements in this case is unlikely, but the Company
will continue to evaluate the potential impact of this suit on the
Company's financial results as it progresses.


AT&T INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Dismissal of "NSA" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on an appeal from the
dismissal of class action lawsuits alleging that the Company
helped the National Security Agency in its intelligence-gathering
activities, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of
September 11, 2001. In the first filed case, Hepting et al v. AT&T
Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California,
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed and are currently
disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call records
concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a party.
Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other
federal and California statutes. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The United States asserted the "state
secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and also filed
a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The Court
denied the motions, and the Company and the United States
appealed. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit remanded the case to the district court without deciding
the issue in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments Act, a
provision of which addresses the allegations in these pending
lawsuits (immunity provision). The immunity provision requires the
pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies
to the court either that the alleged assistance was undertaken by
court order, certification, directive or written request or that
the telecom entity did not provide the alleged assistance. In
September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification and
asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits pending
against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies. The court
granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered final
judgments in July 2009. In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin
the immunity provision's application on grounds that it is
unconstitutional was filed. In March 2009, the Company and the
Government filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit. The court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July
2009. All cases brought against the AT&T entities have been
dismissed. In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this appeal remains
pending. Management believes this appeal is without merit and
intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously.


AT&T INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over "Illegal Fees"
------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company unlawfully collected service
fees, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2010, the Company's wireless subsidiary was served with
a purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri
(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the
plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the FCC's rules by
collecting universal service fees on certain services not subject
to such fees, including Internet access service provided over
wireless handsets commonly called "smartphones" and wireless data
cards, as well as collecting certain other state and local fees.
Plaintiffs define the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003,
until the present had a contractual relationship with the Company
for Internet access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as
injunctive relief. The Company believes that an adverse outcome
having a material effect on the Company's financial statements in
this case is unlikely.


BB&T CORP: Appeals From Class Certification Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
BB&T Corporation's appeals in three purported actions to preclude
class action treatment remain pending, according to the Company's
May 6, 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 in three separate cases primarily
challenging the Company's daily ordering of debit transactions
posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to
2010. The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment,
however, no class has been certified. The court has denied motions
by the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to be
submitted to individual arbitration. The Company has filed appeals
in all three matters, which, if granted, would preclude class
action treatment. Even if those appeals are denied, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these matters,
including class certification. Because of these appeals, and
because these cases are in the early stages and no damages have
been specified, no specific loss or range of loss can be
determined currently.

BB&T is a financial holding company that conducts operations
through its principal bank subsidiary, Branch Banking and Trust
Company, BB&T Financial, FSB a federally chartered thrift
institution, and its nonbank subsidiaries.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against The Blackstone Group L.P. and some of its
executive officers purporting to be class actions on behalf of
purchasers of common units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial
public offering.  These suits were subsequently consolidated into
one complaint filed in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in October 2008 against Blackstone,
Stephen A. Schwarzman (Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer), Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman),
Hamilton E. James (Blackstone's President and Chief Operating
Officer) and Michael A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial
Officer at the time of the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged
that (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for failing
to disclose that (a) one private equity investment would be
adversely affected by trends in mortgage default rates,
particularly for sub-prime mortgage loans, (b) another private
equity investment was adversely affected by the loss of an
exclusive manufacturing agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the
U.S. real estate market had started to deteriorate, adversely
affecting the value of Blackstone's real estate investments; and
(2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were materially
inaccurate principally because they overstated the value of the
investments referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.

Blackstone believes that the suits are totally without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against sixteen private equity firms and investment banks,
including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts.  The suit alleges that from mid-2003
defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to
rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the
prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide
up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all
persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged
buyout transactions.  The amended complaint also includes seven
purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking damages and/or
restitution and comprised of shareholders of seven companies.

Blackstone believes that the suits are totally without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Signs Deal to Settle Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., entered into a stipulation of
settlement to resolve the consolidated securities class action
litigation, In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989-GKF-FHM, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, according to
the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As set forth more fully in the Stipulation, if the proposed
settlement is given final approval by the court, among other
things, the shareholder class will receive a total payment of
approximately $28.0 million from the defendants.  The Partnership
accrued a contingent loss of $20.2 million as of December 31,
2010, related to its portion of the proposed settlement.  Of that
amount, the Partnership expects to receive insurance proceeds of
$13.0 million to $13.9 million and accordingly recognized an
insurance recovery receivable of $13.0 million as of December 31,
2010.  Of the difference, the Partnership expects to issue common
units of the Partnership with a value equal to approximately $5.2
million.  The terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in
the Stipulation.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the
proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions and
approvals, including, among other items, preliminary and final
court approval.  Details regarding any proposed settlement will be
communicated to potential class members prior to final court
approval.  At this time, there can be no assurance that the
conditions to effect the settlement will be met or that the
settlement of the Class Action Litigation will receive the
required court and other approvals.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: To Seek Court Okay of Managers' Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., anticipates filing a motion in the
near future requesting approval of a settlement of a wage and hour
class action lawsuit filed by former managers in California,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2011.

On May 19, 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the San Diego
Superior Court against California Pizza Kitchen. The lawsuit was
filed by a former restaurant manager on behalf of himself and
other current and former restaurant managers employed in
California. The lawsuit alleged violations of state wage-and-hour
laws involving the exempt status of managers, resulting in alleged
violations of meal and rest breaks and unpaid overtime, and sought
unspecified monetary damages. On October 7, 2010, the Company
entered into a proposed settlement of all claims in the action.
This proposed settlement is subject to court approval. The
proposed settlement does not involve any admission of wrongdoing
or liability and, subject to court approval, will result in the
dismissal of the lawsuit's claims against the Company. Under the
proposed settlement, class members can submit claims pursuant to a
Court approved process whereby the Company would pay an amount not
to exceed $4.0 million to settle claims asserted on behalf of the
class. The Company has accrued a legal settlement reserve based on
its best estimate of costs to be incurred relative to this case.
The Company anticipates filing a motion in the Superior Court in
the near future requesting approval of the proposed settlement.
The Company cannot provide any assurances that the Court will
approve the proposed settlement.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Still Defends Class Suits by Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., is still defending itself against
two wage and hour class action lawsuits filed by former hourly
restaurant employees in California, according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.

On April 27, 2007, three former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class-action lawsuit in the San
Francisco Superior Court. The parties purport to represent other
current and former California restaurant employees. The lawsuit
alleges violations of state wage-and-hour laws involving the
purchase and reimbursement for laundering of uniforms and sought
unspecified monetary damages. On August 11, 2010, the Court
granted class certification in this matter. The Company denies any
liability with respect to these allegations and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in this action. An estimate of the
possible loss, if any, or the range of the loss cannot be made at
time.

On July 3, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class-action lawsuit in the Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of state wage-and-hour
laws. On April 22, 2008 and on April 25, 2008, former hourly
employees in the State of California filed two additional lawsuits
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging similar wage-and-hour
violations, and on December 4, 2008, the Court coordinated the
three cases. The parties purport to represent other current and
former hourly California restaurant employees. The lawsuit alleges
violations of state wage-and-hour laws involving allegations of
work performed off the clock, improper reduction in hours, failure
to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse
employees for expenses incurred in the course of employment. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages. In December 2008,
a proposed settlement was not approved by the Court. The Company
has accrued a loss contingency based on the proposed settlement
which is not considered to be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position. The Company denies any liability
with respect to these allegations and intend to vigorously defend
itself in this action.


CC MEDIA HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery in Suits vs. Units Ends
---------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for completing fact discovery in the centralized
class action lawsuits against certain of CC Media Holdings Inc.'s
subsidiaries was May 23, 2011, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are co-defendants with Live
Nation, (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country
beginning in May 2006.  These actions generally allege that the
defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for
"live rock concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount.  On April 17, 2006,
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these
class action proceedings in the Central District of California.
On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
in five "template" cases involving five regional markets: Los
Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.  Defendants opposed
that motion and, on October 22, 2007, the district court issued
its decision certifying the class for each regional market.

In September 2009, the Court stayed the case pending the issuance
of a decision by an en banc panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168,
which was expected to clarify the standard for class
certification.  On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its
opinion in Dukes, and on October 13, 2010 the district court
granted plaintiffs' request to lift the stay and denied
defendants' motion to reconsider the decision to grant class
certification.  On January 4, 2011, the court denied the Company's
request for leave to appeal its refusal to reconsider class
certification.  Discovery is underway, and the deadline for
completing fact discovery is May 23, 2011.


CENTURYLINK INC: Appeal From Qwest Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit
against CenturyLink, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according
to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On April 1, 2011, the Company acquired Qwest Communications
International Inc. through a merger transaction, with Qwest
surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenturyLink.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain retirees of the
Company's subsidiary, Qwest Communications International Inc., was
brought against Qwest, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and
other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in
connection with Qwest's decision to reduce the life insurance
benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit.  The action was
filed on March 30, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that Qwest and other defendants were obligated to continue
their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before Qwest
decided to reduce them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life
insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief.
The district court ruled in Qwest's favor on the central issue of
whether Qwest properly reserved its right to reduce the life
insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.  The
plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert
additional claims.

In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to Qwest
on all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs have appealed
the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.


CENTURYLINK INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Fulghum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit against
CenturyLink, Inc.'s indirect subsidiary, Embarq Corporation,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas (Civil Action No. 07-CV-2602), a group of
retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decision to make certain modifications to Embarq's retiree
benefits programs generally effective January 1, 2008 (which
resulted in a $300 million reduction to the liability for retiree
benefits at the time of the modifications).  Defendants include
Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits
Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its
benefits plans.  Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and
certain of its benefit plans.  Recently, the Court certified a
class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class
certification as to other claims.  Embarq and other defendants
continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges.

Given that this litigation is still in discovery, the Company
believes it is premature to estimate the impact this lawsuit could
have to its results of operations or financial condition.  In
2009, a ruling in Embarq's favor was entered in an arbitration
proceeding filed by 15 former Centel executives, similarly
challenging the benefits changes.


CENTURYLINK INC: Talks to Settle Fiber-Optic Suits Are Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in several putative class action lawsuits commenced in
various states against CenturyLink, Inc.'s subsidiary are
currently engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-by-state
basis, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On April 1, 2011, the Company acquired Qwest Communications
International Inc. through a merger transaction, with Qwest
surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenturyLink.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Qwest Communications International Inc., on
behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois
(where there is a federal and a state court case), Indiana,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,
New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah and Washington.  For the most part, the complaints challenge
Qwest's right to install its fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-
of-way.  The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-
of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit
Qwest to install its fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without
the plaintiffs' consent.  Most of the actions purport to be
brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs'
respective states, although two of the currently pending actions
purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes.
Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to be on
behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state
court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of
landowners.  In general, the complaints seek damages on theories
of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts
entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of
the actions, except the action pending in Tennessee.  On September
10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the settlement on
grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  On December
9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among other
things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed the
matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The parties are
now engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-by-state basis,
and have filed and received preliminary approval of a settlement
in Illinois federal court.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wage Class Suits Still Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits pending before California state
courts, according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2011.

On January 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to
pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims
(Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case
No. BC360426).  This case was previously stayed by the parties
through December 2008, pending the California Supreme Court's
decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of
San Diego County (No. S166350, 2008). On July 6, 2010, the Court
denied the plaintiffs motion for class certification. A notice of
appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs on August 3, 2010
and the parties are currently in settlement negotiations.

On May 10, 2010, three current hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the California
Superior Court, Placer County, against the Company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code by requiring employees to
purchase uniforms and other work tools to perform their jobs,
among other claims (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc. et al; Case No. S CV 27073).

On July 28, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court (Rusteen v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. 1-10-CV-178233) claiming
similar and additional allegations to those asserted in Case No.
BC360426 including, among other things, violations of California's
wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay the
plaintiff overtime, reporting time pay and minimum wages, allow
proper meal breaks or rest periods, and provide adequate pay
statements.

In October 2010, the Company gave notice to the respective courts
in Case No. S CV 27073, Case No. 1-10-CV-178233 and Case No.
BC360426 that such cases may be related.

On April 6, 2011, a Class Action Complaint in Intervention was
filed by a former staff member from the Company's Irvine,
California restaurant seeking to join in Case No. S CV 27073.

These lawsuits seek unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and other
purported class members. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.  Based on
the current status of this matter, the Company has not reserved
for any potential future payments.

The Cheesecake Factory is an upscale, casual dining concept that
offers more than 200 menu items including appetizers, pizza,
seafood, steaks, chicken, burgers, pasta, specialty items, salads,
sandwiches, omelettes and desserts, including approximately 40
varieties of cheesecake and other baked desserts.


CITY OF NEW YORK: Accused of Violations of State Civil Service Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Roberts, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. The City of New York, et al., Case No.
105806/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. May 17, 2011),
challenges Respondent New York City Department of Transportation's
(DOT) and Respondent Department of Citywide Administrative
Services' (DCAS) conduct in the manner in which they have
administered appointments of candidates to the title of Supervisor
of Traffic Device Maintainer from the civil service list
established from candidates who sat for, and passed Examination
no. 7531.

Petitioners further challenge DOT's conduct in appointing
individuals to act in the title of Supervisor of Traffic Device
Maintainer -- employees who are appointed neither permanently or
on a provisional basis and who have not demonstrated their merit
and fitness by successfully competing on a civil service
examination -- when permanent employees are eligible for
appointment to that position.

These actions are arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the
New York State Civil Service Law and Constitution, the petition
states.

Ms. Roberts is the Executive Director of District Council 37,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO ("DC 37"), a public employee organization representing some
125,000 employees in the various agencies, authorities, boards and
corporations in the city of New York.

DC 37's offices are located at 125 Barclay Street in the County of
New York.  DC 37 is the certified collective bargaining
representative for its affiliate Local 1455, which represents
approximately 300 employees serving in the Traffic Device
Maintainer title employed by the New York City's DOT.

The city of New York is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York.  Respondent Michael
Bloomberg is Mayor of the city of New York.  New York City DOT is
a mayoral agency of the City.  Pursuant to the New York City
Charter, the Department is charged with, among other things,
regulating the City's parking and traffic operations and in so
doing, must establish determine, control, install and maintain any
and all signs, markings, signals and other devices used to control
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Mary J. O'Connel, Esq.
          General Counsel
          DISTRICT COUNCIL 37
          AFSCME, AFL-CIP
          125 Barclay Street, Rm. 510
          New York, NY 10007-2179
          Telephone: (212) 815-1450


CITY OF NEW YORK: 2004 RNC Mass Arrest Class Action Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that nearly seven
years after originally filing their class action complaint,
protesters of the 2004 Republican National Convention won class
certification for a suit that says about 1,800 people had their
rights violated in a sweep of mass arrests.

The plaintiffs' attorneys hailed the belated decision.

"We're very pleased with the outcome.  We're not happy that it
took the court several years to decide it," Jonathan Moore of
Moore & Goodman, LLP told Courthouse News in a phone interview.
"Now, we're in a position to seek justice for all those falsely
arrested and excessively detained at the 2004 Republican National
Convention."

On Nov. 22, 2004, 24 protesters sued New York City, Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and dozens of other
NYPD cops and officials for false arrest, punitive detention,
abuse of process and other constitutional violations.

They say the city had an indiscriminate mass arrest policy that
called for the use of mesh netting and lines of police officers to
barricade and corral large groups of protesters, reporters, legal
observers, and bystanders, without giving audible dispersal
orders.

In their original complaint, the plaintiffs said they received
"cruel and inhumane" treatment in cold, loud, chemical-strewn,
makeshift cells in Pier 57, along the Hudson River.

"On information and belief, the floors of the cages in Pier 57
were covered with numerous highly toxic chemicals and substances,
including, on information and belief, those known to be
carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, hepatogenic, and immunotoxic
. . . The floors of the cages in Pier 57 were also covered in
other dirt and grime," the original complaint stated.

The protesters said that city cops taunted them and said they
would be held "until George Bush left town."

The complaint was amended twice, most recently in 2008.
In his 29-page order and opinion, U.S. District Judge Richard
Sullivan divided the classes into eight subclasses, based on site
of the arrest, group of people involved, and the location of the
detention.

The judge certified six of these groups and dismissed the other
two for lack of predominance.

The green-lighted claims include a group of cyclists participating
in Critical Mass, a monthly bike ride for environmental activism;
an unaffiliated group of cyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians;
activists from the War Resisters League, which opposes paying
taxes for military purposes; and three other groups of marchers,
protesters and bystanders.

One of the standing plaintiffs, according to the order, was a 15-
year-old on her way to a movie theater.

A spokeswoman for the New York City Law Department wrote in an e-
mailed statement that they are reviewing the decision.  There will
be a status conference on June 6.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in MacNamara, et al. v. City of
New York, et al., Case No. 04-cv-09216 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at
http://is.gd/CbG8Ag


CLEAR CHANNEL: Discovery Underway in "Live Nation" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., discloses in its May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, that discovery is underway
in a class action lawsuit involving Live Nation over the selling
of tickets in rock concerts.

The Company and one of its subsidiary are co-defendants with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country
beginning in May 2006. These actions generally allege that the
defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for
"live rock concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount. On April 17, 2006,
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these
class action proceedings in the Central District of California. On
March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in
five "template" cases involving five regional markets: Los
Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver. Defendants opposed
that motion and, on October 22, 2007, the district court issued
its decision certifying the class for each regional market. In
September 2009, the Court stayed the case pending the issuance of
a decision by an en banc panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168,
which was expected to clarify the standard for class
certification. On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its
opinion in Dukes, and on October 13, 2010 the district court
granted plaintiffs' request to lift the stay and denied
defendants' motion to reconsider the decision to grant class
certification. On January 4, 2011, the court denied the Company's
request for leave to appeal its refusal to reconsider class
certification. Discovery is underway, and the deadline for
completing fact discovery was May 23, 2011.


CYNOSURE INC: Certification Motion Pending in "Weitzner" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion remains pending in the putative class
action filed by Dr. Ariz Weitzner against Cynosure, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the
Company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys
fees. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up
to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500
per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on
discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately
three million facsimiles were sent on the Company's behalf by a
third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. On February 6,
2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff
served a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed
on numerous factual and legal grounds, including that a nationwide
class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court
by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; individual issues
predominate over common issues; a class action is not superior to
other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an
inadequate class representative. The Company also believes it has
many merits defenses, including that the faxes in question do not
constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many
recipients had an established business relationship with the
Company and are thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of
facsimile communications. The Court held a hearing on the
plaintiff's class certification motion in June 2008, but no
decision on the motion has been rendered. In July 2010, the Court
issued an order dismissing this matter without prejudice for Dr.
Weitzner's failure to prosecute the case in August 2010, Dr.
Weitzner filed a motion for relief from the dismissal order, which
the Court allowed. At a status conference held in November 2010,
the Court confirmed that the class certification motion was still
under advisement. The Company is not currently able to estimate
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome of this lawsuit.

In July 2008, the Company commenced a declaratory judgment action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
requesting a declaration that Dr. Weitzner's and the putative
class claims are covered under the Company' general liability
insurance policies. In August 2008, the Company's insurance
company filed an Answer and Counterclaim against the Company
seeking a declaration that the Company's policy does not provide
coverage for Dr. Weitzner's claims. In August 2008, the Company
filed a reply to the Counterclaim. The insurance company filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in December 2008, and the Company
cross moved for Summary Judgment in January 2009. The Court held a
hearing on the motions in February 2009, and in April 2009
rendered a decision that the Company's liability insurer is
obligated to provide the Company with a defense to the Weitzner
action and, if necessary, indemnify the Company for the putative
class claims. Thereafter, the Company's liability insurer filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the Company opposed.  The court
denied the insurer's motion in May 2009. In January 2010, the
court entered an Order for Judgment consistent with its April 8,
2009 decision that the insurer is obligated to defend the Company
against the putative class claims and to indemnify the Company for
any single damages, attorneys' fees or costs. Per agreement of the
parties, the Company was awarded $0.4 million in fees and costs
for the period through July 1, 2009. The insurer filed a Notice of
Appeal of the judgment in January 2010. The matter has been fully
briefed and the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments in January 2011. No other activity has occurred since
that date.

Cynosure, Inc., develops and markets aesthetic treatment systems
that are used by physicians and other practitioners to perform
non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures to remove hair,
treat vascular and pigmented lesions, rejuvenate the skin, liquefy
and remove unwanted fat through laser lypolysis and reduce the
appearance of cellulite.


DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend "Wage and Hour" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita, Inc., continues to defend itself in a purported class
action asserting a wage and hour claim in California, according to
the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time. The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims and to vigorously oppose
the certification of these claims as a class action. Any potential
settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

DaVita, Inc., operates principally as a dialysis and related lab
services business but also operate other ancillary services and
strategic initiatives.


DAVITA INC: Unit Continues to Defend Against Blue Cross Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against the
remaining claims arising from a class arbitration in Louisiana,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In August 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana against Gambro AB, the Company's subsidiary,
DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and
related entities. The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a
class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of
the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004. The complaint
alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and
circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004 settlement
agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of
the U.S. government. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the
plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.
In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the Company and DVA Renal Healthcare. In
February 2011, the arbitration panel denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
plaintiff's remaining individual claims and any appeal that may be
filed. At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate
outcome of this matter or the potential range of damages, if any.

DaVita, Inc., operates principally as a dialysis and related lab
services business but also operate other ancillary services and
strategic initiatives.


DAVITA INC: To Oppose Certification of Class in Employee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita, Inc.'s subsidiary intends to oppose class certification of
an action filed by a former employee in California, according to
the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In June 2004, DVA Renal Healthcare f/k/a Gambro Healthcare was
served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California
by one of its former employees who worked for its California acute
services program. The complaint, which is styled as a class
action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare
failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal
periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to
comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The
Company also intends to vigorously oppose the certification of
this matter as a class action. At this time, any potential
settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

DaVita, Inc., operates principally as a dialysis and related lab
services business but also operate other ancillary services and
strategic initiatives.


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Tasmanians File Class Action Over Hip Implant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Clark, writing for The Mercury, reports that twenty
Tasmanians are involved in a Federal Court class action against
replacement hip maker DePuy Orthopedics.

Maurice Blackburn solicitor Ben Slade said the case was due to
resume in the Federal Court in Sydney on June 3.

"We have had considerable interest from Tasmanians with 20 people
registering for the class action over faulty implants," Mr. Slade
said.

"Tasmanian Tammy Stanford is the lead plaintiff in the legal
action."

On May 16, ABC's Four Corners program revealed that problems with
the hip replacements had been known for some time.

DePuy Orthopedics, part of the Johnson & Johnson healthcare
empire, produced the ASR -- or Articular Surface Replacement --
prosthesis.

The ASR, recalled last year, is a metal-on-metal implant with
components made from cobalt, chromium and titanium.

About 5,500 Australians are estimated to have received an ASR this
decade.

In March, the Mercury reported that Ms. Stanford of Howrah, had
had three hip operations since her device was implanted in 2005.

Mr. Slade said one of the major problems with the device was that
"metal wear debris gets into the bloodstream and causes soft
tissue reaction and also degradation of the bone around the hip".

Ms. Stanford, 40, said surgery in January had revealed that her
hip joint was inflamed and the tissue around the joint and bone
had degenerated.

"There was a lot of wear and tear on my body and he [her surgeon]
actually described what he had to scrape as a black tar, gunky
substance and the images of that were just terrifying, thinking I
had that inside me," she said.

A second Hobart woman, Marlene Burles, and a Tasmanian man are
being represented by Brisbane firm Shine Lawyers who will take
class action in the US on behalf of 100 Australians.

Ms. Burles, of Berriedale, had a hip replacement in 2006 and has
suffered severe pain since.

Information from the Australian National Joint Replacement
registry reveals that an average 1000 hip procedures are done in
Tasmania every year.

Shine Lawyers' Rebecca Jancauskas, Esq., said the first matter in
the US was expected to be listed for trial in the next couple of
months.

"Clients are seeking damages for pain and suffering and economic
loss," she said.

Tammy Stanford is the lead plaintiff in a class action over faulty
implants.


DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Suits Over Early Cancellation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV continues to defend itself against putative class action
lawsuits relating to its early cancellation fees, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assess its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek
both monetary and injunctive relief.  While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company says it intends to move to
compel these cases to arbitration in accordance with its Customer
Agreement.  The Company believes that its early cancellation fees
are adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of
the costs it incurs when customers cancel service before
fulfilling their programming commitments.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over No Tipping Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Globe reports that an employee has filed a lawsuit
against a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee that alleges that the
franchisee's no tipping policy violates the Massachusetts Tips
Law.

The complaint was filed on May 18 in Suffolk Superior Court by Ron
Meshna, who works at a Dunkin' Donuts in North Reading owned by
the Scrivanos Group, a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee, said Shannon
Liss-Riordan, Esq., Mr. Meshna's attorney; the suit is seeking
class action status.

According to Ms. Liss-Riordan, the suit filed against Scrivanos
Group raises a new issue --- that the Tips Law prohibits an
employer from refusing to allow employees to receive tips.

The suit is asking that Mr. Meshna and other workers at Dunkin'
stores operated by the Scrivanos Group be paid for the tips that
they did not receive; the suit asks that a jury determine the
amount of those tips.

Attempts to get comment from the Scrivanos Group and its attorney
were not immediately successful.

Ms. Liss-Riordan has represented workers in lawsuits about tips in
the past, including one involving skycaps at Logan International
Airport and another involving food service workers at Fenway Park.


EMCORE CORP: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in a consolidated class action against Emcore Corporation
in New Mexico remains pending, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class
of Company shareholders against the Company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's
Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the Prissert
Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with
the maintenance of the action. On or about February 12, 2009, a
second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action,
based on substantially the same facts and circumstances,
containing substantially the same allegations and seeking
substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action.  On September 25, 2009, the court
issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller
actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs
motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union
No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff, but denied,
without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel.  On
August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel.  That
motion remains pending.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Hearing on Class Suit Deal Set for July 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Washington, King County, will convene a
hearing on July 29, 2011, to determine whether the settlement in
the lawsuit relating to the proposed merger of Emergent
BioSolutions Inc.'s subsidiary and Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class members, according
to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On August 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, or State Court, against
Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Trubion, its board of directors,
and the Company, or collectively, the Defendants, alleging in
summary that, in connection with the proposed merger of Trubion
with a subsidiary of the Company, or the Acquisition, the members
of the Trubion board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair
price.  Both complaints also claim that Trubion and the Company
aided and abetted the Trubion board of directors in its breach of
fiduciary duties.  On September 9, 2010, the actions were
consolidated into a single action.  On October 1, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the State Action served on the Defendants a
consolidated amended class action complaint, or Amended Complaint.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things and in addition
to the matters alleged in the initial complaints, that the
Defendants omitted material information from the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

On October 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants, which makes allegations related to the Acquisition
that are substantially similar to those matters alleged in the
Amended Complaint, includes additional allegations regarding
purported violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
substantially similar relief.

On October 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions.  The terms of the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle require that Trubion and the Company make
certain additional disclosures related to the Acquisition, as set
forth in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
October 8, 2010.  The parties also agreed that the plaintiffs in
the Actions may seek attorneys' fees and costs in an aggregate
amount up to $475,000, to be paid by Trubion if such fees and
costs are approved by the State Court.  There will be no other
payment by Trubion, any of the members of the Trubion board of
directors or the Company to the plaintiffs or their respective
counsels in connection with the settlement and dismissal of the
Actions.  The agreement in principle further contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be
subject to customary conditions, including State Court approval
following notice to Trubion's shareholders.

The Actions were stayed pending approval of the settlement of the
State Action by the State Court, after which  the State Action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed with prejudice and
counsel for the plaintiff in the Federal Action will take all
necessary steps to dismiss the Federal Action and all claims
asserted therein with prejudice.

On April 26, 2011, the State Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and requiring that notice
of the settlement and preliminary approval be mailed to class
members by May 17, 2011.  The order also provides that all class
members who wish to be excluded from the settlement of the Actions
give notice by June 21, 2011.  The State Court's hearing to
determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
to the class members and should be approved is scheduled to occur
on July 29, 2011.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the State
Court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the agreement in principle.


FORISTELL, MO: Former Officers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------
STLtoday.com reports that former police officers have filed a
federal class action lawsuit in St. Louis against Foristell and
Chief Douglas Johnson over what they say was required unpaid work.
The suit says officers have been required to start their shifts 15
minutes early to talk with other officers coming off their shifts,
transfer equipment between vehicles and other duties.  It says
they were not paid for the work, and the city did not accurately
keep track of their hours worked.  Mr. Johnson and other city
officials could not be reached for comment.  The four former
officers who filed suit are Robert Bittick, Branden Anderson,
Casey O. Doyle and William Kovac.  Their attorney, Kevin Dolley,
Esq., estimated up to 25 current and former officers could join
the suit.


GATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Judge Dismisses Autism Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that an attempt by two families to
get federal courts to change the way the Gateway School District
educates autistic children was dismissed on May 17 by U.S.
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab, but their attorney said it will
be renewed.

One family, whose members have not been named in court documents,
sued in October, saying that they were told that their son was
progressing at Ramsey Elementary School.  But when he advanced to
Moss Side Middle School, they learned that he was still at the
first- or second-grade level.

Another family joined, and they sought class action status and
demanded retraining of district personnel.

Judge Schwab found that the families didn't complete the mandatory
pre-lawsuit dispute resolution process outlined in federal law,
and the fact that they claimed to represent a class of people
didn't allow them to opt out of that route.  He said the first
family had a due process hearing scheduled at one point, but
pulled out in favor of the lawsuit.

Jeffrey Ruder, Esq., the attorney representing the parents who
filed suit, said the families would go through the administrative
process and then proceed with the class action.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Capital Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed in New York remains
pending, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the Company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and the
Company's directors. The complaints, which have now been
consolidated, seek unspecified damages based on allegations
related to statements regarding the GE dividend and projected
losses and earnings for GECC in 2009. The Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in November 2009, is
now fully briefed and, following an oral argument held in November
2010, is currently under consideration by the Court. A shareholder
derivative action was filed in federal court in Connecticut in May
2009 making essentially the same allegations as the New York class
actions. GE's motion to transfer the derivative action to the
Southern District of New York as a related case was granted in
February 2010, and the Company's motion to dismiss was granted in
April 2011. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.


GENERAL MOTORS: Arizona Plaintiffs Appeal Order in Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in antitrust class action lawsuits against General
Motors Company and other car manufacturers appealed from an
Arizona state court's order granting summary judgment in the
defendants' favor, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Certain class action cases were filed by purchasers of new motor
vehicles in the United States of America since 2001 against
General Motors Corporation or Old GM, General Motors of Canada
Limited, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler LLC, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited
and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the
National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association.  In the Arizona state court cases,
the court granted summary judgment in the defendants' favor on
February 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs in the Arizona cases have
appealed.

Without conceding liability, GMCL has agreed with plaintiffs to
settle all remaining state court cases in the amount of $21
million with the settlement to be apportioned among the claimants,
their lawyers and administrative costs.  Lawyers representing the
plaintiffs will seek approval of the settlement by the state
courts in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wisconsin
and Florida in the coming months.


GENERAL MOTORS: Unit Seeks to Appeal Certification in Dealers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada Limited is awaiting a ruling on its
request for permission to appeal from the order granting class
certification of a lawsuit on behalf of more than 200 former
Canadian GMCL dealers, according to General Motors Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former Canadian GMCL
dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL.  In May 2009, in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL Canadian dealer network and to facilitate
winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by
December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later
than upon the expiration of the Plaintiff Dealers' Dealer Sales
and Service Agreements (DSSAs) on October 31, 2010.  The Plaintiff
Dealers allege that the DSSAs were wrongly terminated by GMCL and
that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations,
breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to
associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into
accepting the wind-down agreements.  The Plaintiff Dealers seek
damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable.
The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim
"not exceeding" C$750 million, without explanation of any specific
measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011, the Court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues,
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages).  GMCL has sought permission to appeal
the class certification decision and is vigorously defending the
Plaintiff Dealer claims.

At this juncture, the prospects for liability are uncertain, but
because liability is not deemed probable, the Company says it has
no accrual relating to this litigation.  In addition, the Company
says it cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in
the event of liability, as the case presents a variety of
different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid,
on behalf of a large number of Plaintiff Dealers, each of which
presents substantial differences in underlying facts and
circumstances which GMCL believes should affect both potential
liability and recoverable damages, if any, on an individual basis.


GRUBHUB LLC: Sued for Imposing Hidden Charges on Customer's Orders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Miller, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GrubHub LLC, et al., Case No. 2011-CH-18005 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. May 17, 2011), accuses GrubHub of deceiving
customers by (i) imposing additional, undisclosed charges on food
items ordered through GrubHub's Web site, and (ii) offering menu
items that are priced higher than the same menu items offered "in-
house" at the same restaurant, in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.

GrubHub LLC, d/b/a GrubHub, provides an online ordering service to
consumers through its Web site www.grubhub.com  GrubHub, an
Illinois company, does business throughout the State of Illinois
and the nation.  By logging their address into www.grubhub.com,
consumers can view local restaurant that deliver to their
location.  Consumers then place delivery and pick-up orders
through GrubHub's Web site.

Defendant Pompei LLC, d/b/a Pompei, is a restaurant chain with
multiple chain locations throughout Chicago.  Pompei partners with
GrubHub to sell food through GrubHub's Web site.

Plaintiff Cory Miller is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.  On
September 3, 2009, plaintiff placed an order for the delivery of
certain food from defendant Pompei LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  wgray@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


HEALTH NET: Defends Class Actions Over Loss of PHI Server Drives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc., is a party to various putative class action
lawsuits brought in federal and state courts on behalf of
individuals who claim to be affected by the loss of server drives
containing protected health information, 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.

In January 2011, the Company was notified by a third party vendor
that certain of its server drives could not be accounted for in
connection with the migration of its data center to a facility
owned and operated by the Company's third party vendor. The
Company subsequently commenced an investigation of the contents of
the unaccounted for server drives, including a detailed forensic
review by computer experts, and determined that certain of these
unaccounted for drives contain protected health information
("PHI") and personally identifiable information relating to
certain individuals. The Company reported the loss to authorities
and notified affected individuals. This matter is under review by
various regulatory authorities. In addition, the Company and its
third party vendor, are currently party to various putative class
action lawsuits brought in federal and state courts on behalf of
individuals who claim to be affected by this incident.

Health Net, Inc. is a publicly traded managed care organization
that delivers managed health care services through health plans
and government-sponsored managed care plans.


KINDER MORGAN: Kansas Court Says Deal in Consolidated Suit Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas trial court entered an order noting that the settlement
in the consolidated class action against Kinder Morgan, Inc., is
now final and effective, according to the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 30, 2007, the Company acquired Kinder Morgan Kansas, Inc.,
through a wholly owned subsidiary -- Going Private Transaction.

Beginning on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal for the
Going Private Transaction was announced, and in the days
following, eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in
Harris County (Houston), Texas, and seven putative Class Action
lawsuits were filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas, against,
among others, Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the
Special Committee of the Board of Directors, and several corporate
officers.

The eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the Crescente
v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006-33011, in the
164th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.  The seven
Kansas cases were consolidated into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801;
In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation; in the District
Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12.  The Consolidated
Petitions filed by the plaintiffs challenged the proposed
transaction as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s
public stockholders.  They alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s
Board of Directors and certain members of senior management
breached their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering
into the merger agreement.  They sought, among other things, to
enjoin the merger, rescission of the merger agreement,
disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants,
and attorneys' fees.  Defendants answered the Consolidated
Petitions, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations and
denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc. directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members
of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder
Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.  In addition, on
November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the Texas trial
court issued an order staying all proceedings in the Texas actions
until such time as a final judgment shall be issued in the Kansas
actions.  The effect of this stay is that the consolidated matters
will proceed only in the Kansas trial court.

On September 8, 2010, the parties entered into a $200 million
settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated class action
cases that were pending before the Kansas trial court.  On
November 19, 2010, the settlement was approved by the Kansas trial
court and in December 2010 the $200 million settlement amount was
paid into an escrow account that is subject to the jurisdiction of
the court.  For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company
recognized a $200 million, pre-tax charge in the caption "General
and administrative expense" in its accompanying consolidated
statement of income.

On December 2, 2010 a Notice of Appeal of the Kansas trial court's
approval of the settlement was filed by Ernest Browne, Jr., a
former owner of 185 shares of Kinder Morgan Kansas, Inc., in the
Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas at Case No. 11-105562-A.
Browne filed an amended Notice of Appeal on January 7, 2011.  On
March 30, 2011, Browne filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of his
appeal which was entered by the Kansas Court of Appeals on
March 31, 2011, ending the appeal of this matter.  On April 11,
2011, the Kansas trial court entered an order noting that the
settlement of these consolidated cases was now final and
effective.

In February 2011, the Company entered into a $45.8 million
settlement agreement with its Directors and Officers insurance
policy insurers (Insurers) regarding certain coverage for the
litigation.  The Insurers made payments of $45.8 million to the
Company in March of 2011 and the Company recognized a gain for
that amount in the caption "General and administrative expense" in
the Company's accompanying consolidated statement of income in the
first quarter of 2011.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend "Fiber Optic" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class actions over its fiber optic cable network installation
business filed by people living adjacent to railroad right-of-
ways, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to a
number of purported class action lawsuits involving the companies'
right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-
ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. The only lawsuit in which a
class has been certified against the companies occurred in Koyle,
et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two
state class action filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho. In November of 2005, the court granted
class certification only for the state of Idaho. The companies
have defeated motions for class certification in a number of these
actions but expect that plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will
continue to seek certification of statewide or multi-state
classes. In general, the companies obtained the rights to
construct their networks from railroads, utilities, and others,
and have installed their networks along the rights-of-way so
granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that
they are the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic
cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others
who granted the companies the right to construct and maintain
their networks did not have the legal authority to do so. The
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment
and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages.
The companies have also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories.

The companies negotiated a series of class settlements affecting
all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights
of way in which the companies have installed their fiber optic
cable network. The United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the companies negotiated revised settlement
terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which the companies have installed their fiber optic cable
network. The companies are currently negotiating certain
procedural issues with legal counsel representing the interests of
the current and former landowners with respect to presentment of
the settlement in applicable jurisdictions. The settlement
affecting current and former landowners in the state of Idaho was
presented to the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho and preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on
January 28, 2011.

It is still too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions. However, management
believes that the companies have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims
which may be named in the future), and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners. Additionally, management believes
that any resulting liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts
reserved, will not materially affect the Company's financial
condition or future results of operations, but could affect future
cash flows.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Order on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal
from an order dismissing a consolidated class action lawsuit in
Colorado, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2009, Level 3 Communications, Inc., certain of its
current officers and a former officer were named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, which have been
consolidated as In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv-00200-PAB-CBS). The plaintiffs in
each complaint allege, in general, that throughout the purported
class period specified in the complaint that the defendants failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's integration
activities, business and operations. The complaints seek damages
based on purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. On May 4, 2009, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff in the case, and on September 29, 2009, the lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. A motion to
dismiss the Complaint was filed by the Company and the other named
defendants. While the motion to dismiss the Complaint was pending,
the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to further amend the
Complaint. Thereafter, the Company and the other defendants named
in the Amended Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint with prejudice. The court granted this motion to dismiss
with prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of
that decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions. However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Enters Settlement in "ERISA" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., has entered into a settlement with
plaintiffs of a class action alleging violations of ERISA,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, Level 3
Communications, Inc., the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan
Committee and certain current and former officers and directors of
Level 3 Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado. These cases have been consolidated as Walter
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., (Civil Case No.
09cv00658). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with
respect to investments in the Company's common stock held in
individual participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications,
Inc. 401(k) Plan. The complaint claims that those investments were
imprudent for reasons that are similar to those alleged in
securities and derivative actions filed against the Company.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are
preparing settlement documents for presentation to the court for
approval.  Additionally, management believes that any resulting
liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts reserved, will not
materially affect the Company's financial condition or future
results of operations, but could affect future cash flows.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these ERISA actions. However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously if the settlement is not approved.


LIFE PARTNERS: Accused of Lying About Life Settlement Returns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Life Partners Inc. tried to
boost profits and eke out higher premiums by lying about the past
and future returns on life settlements, a secondary market for
life insurance, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Turnbow, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-01030 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

   http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/20/dallaslifepartners.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric G. Calhoun, Esq.
          TRAVIS, CALHOUN & CONLON P.C.
          1000 Providence Towers East
          Dallas, TX 75244
          Telephone: (972) 934-4100
          E-mail: eric@travislaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-1401
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          One Independent Drive, Suite 3201
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 482-4073
          E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          A. Hoyt Rowell, III, Esq.
          Robert S. Wood, Esq.
          Katie McElveen, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC
          P.O. Box 1007
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (888) 293-6883
          E-mail: jwar@rpwb.com
                  hrowell@rpwb.com
                  bwood@rpwb.com
                  kmcelveen@rpwb.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court Approves Settlement in IPO-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
approved a settlement agreement among parties of a consolidated
lawsuit against Limelight Networks, Inc., relating to its initial
public offering, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Courts for the District of Arizona and
the Southern District of New York.  All of the New York cases were
transferred to Arizona and consolidated into a single action.  The
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserted causes of action under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased the
Company's common stock in its initial public offering and/or
pursuant to its Prospectus.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company omitted and/or misstated certain facts
concerning the seasonality of its business and the loss of revenue
related to certain customers.  On March 17, 2008, the Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs'
claims and a hearing was held on June 16, 2008.  On August 8,
2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing
plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and granting
leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15.  Plaintiffs
chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15, and on
August 29, 2008 the court entered judgment in favor of the
Company.  On September 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January
and February 2009.  The Company believes that it and the
individual defendants have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.

In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the
coverage limits of the primary carrier of the Company's directors
and officers liability insurance, and on July 7, 2010, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of
the Memorandum of Understanding, which required court approval.
On March 22, 2011, the Federal District Court held a hearing
pursuant to which the Court approved the settlement.  Accordingly,
the Company does not believe that a loss is probable and believes
that this litigation is now successfully concluded.  Therefore,
the Company has made no provision for this lawsuit in its
financial statements.


LOOPNET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With CoStar
--------------------------------------------------------------
LoopNet, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit brought
by a stockholder challenging its proposed merger with CoStar Group
Inc., according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and its board of directors are named as defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit brought by an alleged stockholder
challenging their proposed merger with CoStar Group Inc.  The
shareholder action was filed on or around May 3, 2011, in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that each member of the
Company's board of directors breached his fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by authorizing the sale of the Company to
CoStar for consideration that does not maximize value to the
shareholders and engineering the transaction to benefit themselves
without regard to the Company's shareholders.  The amended
complaint also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the Company's board of directors.  The shareholder action seeks
equitable relief, including an injunction against consumating the
merger.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and is
currently reviewing the recently filed action.


MACERICH COMPANY: Continues to Defend "Wage and Hour" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Macerich Company continues to defend itself in a putative
class action alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according
to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

A putative class action complaint was filed on September 1, 2010,
involving a single plaintiff based on alleged wage and hour
violations. The Company has denied all material allegations
asserted in this complaint and is vigorously defending this
action.

The Macerich Company is involved in the acquisition, ownership,
development, redevelopment, management and leasing of regional and
community shopping centers located throughout the United States.


MICHAELS STORES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Customer Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that customers of Michaels say in
a federal class action that their bank accounts were looted
because the crafts retailer failed to safeguard against card
skimming and then failed to give timely notice.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-_____ (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/20/michaels.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Belongia, Esq.
          Harry O. Channon, Esq.
          BELONGIA SHAPIRO & FRANKLIN LLP
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-662-1030

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          369 Lexington Ave., Floor 10
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-989-1515
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Seeks Court Nod on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
OppenheimerFunds, Inc., on May 20 disclosed that proposed
settlements have been filed in two consolidated class action law
suits relating to Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund and Oppenheimer
Champion Income Fund that are pending in the federal district
court in Colorado.

The parties in the cases are seeking preliminary approval of
settlement agreements by the court so that information about the
proposed settlements may be sent out to class members.
OppenheimerFunds entered into these proposed settlement agreements
to avoid a lengthy and expensive legal process, and in doing so
has not admitted any wrongdoing in the matters raised in the law
suits.  OppenheimerFunds believes that that proposed settlements
are in the best interest of shareholders of the Funds and are
pleased to be moving toward a resolution of these matters.

                  About OppenheimerFunds, Inc.

OppenheimerFunds, Inc. is one of the nation's largest and most
respected investment management companies.  As of March 31, 2011,
OppenheimerFunds, Inc., including subsidiaries, managed more than
$185 billion in assets, including mutual funds having
approximately 11 million shareholder accounts, including sub-
accounts.  Known for its tagline The Right Way to Invest,
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. has been helping investors reach their
financial goals since 1960.  The Company and its controlled
affiliates offer a broad range of products and services to
individuals, corporations and institutions, including mutual
funds, separately managed accounts, investment management for
institutions, qualified retirement plans and sub advisory
investment-management services.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates, including Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network,
Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), Travelport Inc. (f/k/a Cendant
Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.), and Internetwork
Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), are parties to various cases
brought by consumers and municipalities and other U.S.
governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and the
Company's merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are
purported class actions, and most of the cases were brought
simultaneously against other online travel companies, including
Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other
things, that Orbitz violated the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy
tax ordinance. While not identical in their allegations, the cases
generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or
state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases, civil
conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms,
including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed,
imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive
damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action. An adverse ruling
in one or more of these cases could require the Company to pay tax
retroactively and prospectively and possibly pay penalties,
interest and fines. The proliferation of additional cases could
result in substantial additional defense costs.

   * Jefferson County, AR -- On January 3, 2011, the Circuit Court
     of Jefferson County, Arkansas denied defendants' motion to
     dismiss.

   * Monroe County, FL -- On January 6, 2011, the U.S. District
     Court for the Southern District of Florida approved the final
     settlement of the parties.

   * Brevard County, FL -- On January 12, 2011, the U.S. District
     Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the case
     following notification of the parties' settlement.

   * Orange County, FL -- On January 20, 2011, the Circuit Court
     in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County,
     Florida denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

   * City of Anaheim, CA -- On January 24, 2011, the City of
     Anaheim filed its notice of appeal from the December 16, 2010
     Order of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County granting
     peremptory writ of mandamus.

   * Miami-Dade County, FL -- On February 8, 2011, the Circuit
     Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County, Florida
     entered plaintiff's and defendants' Joint Stipulation for
     Partial Dismissal of Claims in accordance with the class
     action settlement agreement reached in Monroe County,
     Florida.

   * City of Jacksonville, FL -- On February 10, 2011, the Circuit
     Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County,
     Florida entered plaintiff's and defendants' Joint Stipulation
     for Partial Dismissal of Claims in accordance with the class
     action settlement agreement reached in Monroe County,
     Florida.

   * Baltimore County, MD -- On March 1, 2011, the United States
     District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Count V
     (unjust enrichment) of the complaint, but denied Defendants'
     motion to dismiss on plaintiff's remaining claims.

   * State of Oklahoma -- On March 11, 2011, the District Court of
     Oklahoma County dismissed plaintiff's complaint.

   * City of Myrtle Beach, SC -- On March 14, 2011, the parties
     reached a tentative settlement agreement.

   * City of Santa Monica, CA -- On March 16, 2011, the Superior
     Court for Los Angeles County granted defendants' demurrer
     dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.

   * City of Rome, GA -- On March 21, 2011, the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted
     plaintiffs' motion for class certification on their statutory
     liability, unjust enrichment, conversion and UDTPA claims,
     but not on their voluntary insertion claims arising from the
     hotel contracts.

   * Washington, D.C. -- On March 22, 2011, The District of
     Columbia filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the
     District of Columbia against Orbitz, LLC and Orbitz
     Worldwide, Inc., seeking declaratory and equitable relief as
     well as the collection of taxes, interest and penalties.

   * Horry County, SC -- On March 23, 2011, the parties executed a
     settlement agreement in which plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
     pending lawsuit.

   * Birmingham, AL -- On March 24, 2011, the Circuit Court of
     Jefferson County, Alabama granted defendants' motion for
     summary judgment.

   * Town of Hilton Head, SC -- On April 12, 2011, the parties
     reached a tentative settlement agreement.

No further details were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend "McAllister" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz, LLC, continues to defend itself against a putative class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas,
commenced by Elizabeth McAllister and Greg Bowerman, according to
the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 24, 2011, citizen-taxpayers Elizabeth McAllister and
Greg Bowerman of Arkansas filed a putative class action complaint
in the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas against Orbitz,
LLC, Trip Network, Inc (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), and Internetwork
Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com) seeking to enjoin defendants
to make reimbursement of monies owed to the State of Arkansas for
hotel taxes collected by defendants and not reported by
defendants, plus interest.  The lawsuit is captioned McAllister et
al. v. Hotels.com LP, et al.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Smoker Health" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit against Philip Morris
International Inc.'s subsidiary in Brazil remains pending,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In February 2004, the Civil Court of Sao Paulo, Brazil, found the
defendants in the class action lawsuit styled The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed
July 25, 1995, liable without hearing evidence.  The court did not
assess moral or actual damages, which were to be assessed in a
second phase of the case.  The size of the class was not defined
in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $600) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling.  The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case.  The size of
the class still has not been estimated.  Defendants appealed to
the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals.  In November 2008, the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals annulled the ruling, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Company's subsidiary filed its closing arguments in January
2011.  In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal
to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff
did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.  This appeal is still
pending.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda, Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant.  The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified
damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and
their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and
their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District.  In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial
court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo
only.  In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo
issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because
the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending.  The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.  The
Company's subsidiary appealed this decision to the State of Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals, which subsequently declared the case
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings.  This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------
In the antitrust class action in Kansas, Smith v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., District Court of Seward County, Kansas,
filed February 7, 2000, Philip Morris International Inc. and other
members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff asserts
that the defendant cigarette companies engaged in an international
conspiracy to fix wholesale prices of cigarettes and sought
certification of a class comprised of all persons in Kansas who
were indirect purchasers of cigarettes from the defendants.  The
plaintiff claims unspecified economic damages resulting from the
alleged price-fixing, trebling of those damages under the Kansas
price-fixing statute and counsel fees.  The trial court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  A court-ordered
mediation was held in October 2010, prior to which the Company
filed a summary judgment motion.  No trial date has yet been set.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing in "El-Roy" Suit Set for November 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for final oral argument on class certification in the
lawsuit El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.,
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, is scheduled for
November 2011, according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Lights Cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf
of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the
term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws.  Plaintiffs
seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive
relief, and compensatory and other damages.  Defenses raised
include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the
risk, and statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2011, there were a number of Lights Cases pending
against the Company's subsidiaries or indemnitees:

   -- two cases brought on behalf of various classes of
      individual plaintiffs (some overlapping) in Israel,
      compared with three such cases on May 1, 2010 and May 1,
      2009; and

   -- 10 cases brought by individuals in the equivalent of small
      claims courts in Italy, where the maximum damages are
      approximately one thousand Euros per case, compared with 12
      such cases on May 1, 2010, and 16 such cases on May 1,
      2009.

In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's
subsidiary and the Company's indemnitees (PM USA and the Company's
former importer Menache H. Eliachar Ltd.) are defendants.  The
plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the class
members were misled by the descriptor "lights" into believing that
lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes.  The
claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of lights cigarettes
and compensation for distress for each class member.  Hearings
took place in November and December 2008 regarding whether the
case meets the legal requirements necessary to allow it to proceed
as a class action.  The parties' briefing on class certification
was completed in March 2011.  A hearing for final oral argument on
class certification is scheduled for November 2011.

The claims in a second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et
al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee (the Company's distributor M.H. Eliashar Distribution
Ltd.) and other members of the industry are similar to those in
El-Roy, and the case is currently stayed pending a ruling on class
certification in El-Roy.


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Yochkolovski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Philip Morris International Inc.'s May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011, its subsidiaries have never been
served with the plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit commenced in Bulgaria.

In the class action in Bulgaria, Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et
al., Sofia City Court, Bulgaria, filed March 12, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff brought a collective claim on behalf of
classes of smokers who were allegedly misled by tar and nicotine
yields printed on packages and on behalf of a class of minors who
were allegedly misled by marketing.  Plaintiff seeks damages for
economic loss, pain and suffering, medical treatment, and
withdrawal from the market of all cigarettes that allegedly do not
comply with tar and nicotine labeling requirements.  The trial
court dismissed the youth marketing claims.  This decision has
been affirmed on appeal.  The trial court also ordered plaintiff
to provide additional evidence in support of the remaining claims
as well as evidence of his capacity to represent the class and
bear the costs of the proceedings.

In November 2010, the trial court dismissed the case. Plaintiff
appealed.  In January 2011, plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
Plaintiff has appealed to the Bulgarian Supreme Court.  The
Company's subsidiaries have never been served with the complaint.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Are Pending in "Adams" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are pending in the class action lawsuit
against Philip Morris International Inc. titled Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members
of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits.  Preliminary motions
are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Bourassa" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff,
the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was
addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting
from the use of tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954 to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants have filed
jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should
not proceed during the pendency of the class action in
Saskatchewan titled Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Dorion" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
To date, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have
not been properly served with the complaint.  No activity in this
case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues a multi-
jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan titled Adams v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Kunta" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"),
severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
a multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan, Adams
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "McDermid" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco
products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the class action
in Saskatchewan titled Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Semple" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products.  He
is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.  No activity in this case is anticipated
while plaintiff's counsel pursues a multi-jurisdictional class
action filed in Saskatchewan titled Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit to Begin October 2011
----------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been scheduled for October 2011 in the class
action lawsuit filed by Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante
and Jean-Yves Blais against Philip Morris International Inc.'s
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants.  The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each
member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-
related diseases.  The class was certified in 2005.  Pre-trial
discovery is ongoing.  A trial date has been scheduled for October
2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Begin October 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been scheduled for October 2011 in the class
action lawsuit filed by Cecilia Letourneau against Philip Morris
International Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was
certified in 2005.  Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.  A trial date
has been scheduled for October 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative class
action pending in Ontario, Canada, according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In a breach of contract action in Ontario, Canada, The Ontario
Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, et al. v. Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario,
Canada, filed November 5, 2009, the Company's subsidiary is a
defendant.  Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that
the Company's subsidiary breached contracts with the proposed
class members (Ontario tobacco growers and their related
associations) concerning the sale and purchase of flue-cured
tobacco from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1996.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company's subsidiary was required by the contracts
to disclose to plaintiffs the quantity of tobacco included in
cigarettes to be sold for duty free and export purposes (which it
purchased at a lower price per pound than tobacco that was
included in cigarettes to be sold in Canada), but failed to
disclose that some of the cigarettes it designated as being for
export and duty free purposes were ultimately sold in Canada.
The Company's subsidiary has been served, but there is currently
no deadline to respond to the statement of claim.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Appeals From Decisions in 24 Cases Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from unfavorable decisions handed in 24 cases made by
Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.'s subsidiary are still pending,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On January 26, 2011, the Company announced that it had entered
into a series of agreements with Oi, Brazil's largest
telecommunications group, to acquire a significant stake in that
company. In connection with the Company's agreements to establish
a strategic partnership with Oi, the Company also agreed to merge
Dedic and GPTI, its subsidiaries that provide call center and
IS/IT services in Brazil, with Contax, one of the leading
corporate services company and the leader in contact center
services in Brazil.

Oi is a defendant in 69 civil class actions filed by the Attorney
General of the National Treasury jointly with certain consumer
agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service centers. The
lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable to Oi in 24 of these
civil class actions, and Oi has appealed these decisions. As of
December 31, 2010, Oi 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.

Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A. provides telecommunications services
mainly in Portugal and through its significant strategic
partnerships and investments in Brazil, certain countries in sub-
Saharan Africa and Asia.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Awaits Initial Decision in Customer Service Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.'s subsidiary is awaiting an initial
ruling in a civil class action lawsuit over alleged moral damages
caused by the subsidiary's non-compliance of Brazil's customer
service regulations, according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 26, 2011, the Company announced that it had entered
into a series of agreements with Oi, Brazil's largest
telecommunications group, to acquire a significant stake in that
company. In connection with the Company's agreements to establish
a strategic partnership with Oi, the Company also agreed to merge
Dedic and GPTI, its subsidiaries that provide call center and
IS/IT services in Brazil, with Contax, one of the leading
corporate services company and the leader in contact center
services in Brazil.

Oi 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 its
alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de
Atendimento ao Consumidor) regulations established by the Ministry
of Justice (Ministerio da Justica). Oi 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. However, Oi has not made any provisions with
respect to this action since it is waiting the court's initial
decision.

Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A. provides telecommunications services
mainly in Portugal and through its significant strategic
partnerships and investments in Brazil, certain countries in sub-
Saharan Africa and Asia.


PRIDE INT'L: Settles Class Action Over Ensco Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Pride International, Inc., on May 20 disclosed that the company
and the other named defendants in the previously disclosed
stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery related to the proposed merger with Ensco plc entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle
the litigation.  As part of the memorandum of understanding and
subject to the approval of the Ensco board of directors, Pride and
Ensco agreed to, among other things, enter into an amendment to
the merger agreement.

The amendment would reduce the fee payable by Pride in connection
with certain terminations of the merger agreement to $195 million
from $260 million.  The amendment also would shorten the "tail
period" for certain transactions that could trigger a termination
fee from 12 months to nine months after termination.  Under the
amendment, the $195 million fee would be payable by Pride if the
agreement is terminated under specified circumstances, including
(1) the decision by the Pride board of directors to accept a
superior proposal, (2) an adverse change in the recommendation of
the Pride board of directors or (3) a failure to obtain approval
by Pride stockholders after public disclosure of an alternative
business combination proposal before the stockholder meeting and
either the Pride board of directors determines such proposal to be
a superior proposal or, within nine months after termination of
the merger agreement, Pride enters into a definitive agreement or
consummates an alternative business combination proposal.

The amendment also would eliminate the "force the vote" provision
applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to
submit the adoption of the merger agreement to its stockholders if
the Pride board of directors made an adverse recommendation
change.

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Pride has also agreed
to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
merger in an SEC filing.

The memorandum of understanding also provides, among other things,
that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement which provides for the release of certain claims held
by such class.  The stipulation of the settlement will be subject
to customary conditions, including court approval.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement that receives court approval.  The
memorandum of understanding is also subject to the approval of the
Ensco board of directors.

Pride International, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas,
operates a fleet of 26 mobile offshore drilling units, consisting
primarily of floating rigs (semisubmersibles and drillships) that
address deepwater drilling programs around the world.  The company
has one of the youngest and most technologically advanced
deepwater drilling fleets in the offshore industry, with five
drillships, including three delivered since 2010, six
semisubmersible rigs and two managed deepwater rigs.  Two
additional deepwater drillships are currently under construction
with expected deliveries in 2011 and 2013.  The company's fleet
also includes six other semisubmersible rigs and seven jackup
rigs.  Pride International's floating rig fleet operates primarily
offshore Brazil and West Africa where the company has a long-
standing presence.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in "fostamatinib" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling granting Rigel Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint 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 February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for a Stock
Offering.  An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated
March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action.  On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2009.  On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint on January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit alleged violations of
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of the
Company's product candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788).
The plaintiff sought damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of their
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between December 13,
2007, and February 9, 2009, including purchasers in the Stock
Offering.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 16, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend.  On September 22,
2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will
not amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final
judgment.  On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed
judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing
the action.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
November 15, 2010, appealing the district court's order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  The plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23,
2011.  The Company filed its opposition brief on April 8, 2011.
Plaintiff's reply brief was due May 9, 2011.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend
upon many unknown factors.  The outcome of the litigation is
necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this suit, and the Company
may not prevail.  Monitoring and defending against legal actions
is time-consuming for the Company's management and detracts from
the Company's ability to fully focus its internal resources on the
Company's business activities.  In addition, the Company may incur
substantial legal fees and costs in connection with the
litigation.  The Company is not currently able to estimate its
possible cost from this matter, and the Company cannot be certain
how long it may take to resolve this matter or the possible amount
of any damages that the Company may be required to pay.  The
Company has not established any reserves for any potential
liability relating to this lawsuit.  It is possible that the
Company could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into
settlements of claims for monetary damages.  A decision adverse to
the Company's interests on this action could result in the payment
of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's cash flow, results of
operations and financial position.  In addition, the uncertainty
of the currently pending litigation could lead to increased
volatility in the Company's stock price.


RIGHTHAVEN LLC: Legal Expert Raises Doubts on Counterclaim
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for VEGAS INC, reports that a class-action
counterclaim against Las Vegas copyright enforcement company
Righthaven LLC attracted plenty of attention on May 17 -- along
with doubts about its probability of success.

Righthaven is the copyright enforcer for the Las Vegas Review-
Journal and the Denver Post that since March 2010 has filed 274
lawsuits over alleged online infringements of material from those
newspapers.

The counterclaim was filed on May 16 by attorneys representing
Righthaven defendant, BuzzFeed Inc., which was sued in federal
court in Denver over a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo allegedly
posted on the BuzzFeed.com Web site.

The class-action seeks to recover damages for Righthaven
defendants sued in 57 cases in Colorado, charging that with its
no-warning lawsuits Righthaven has subjected the defendants to
"extortion litigation" over dubious copyright infringement claims.

Righthaven, unsurprisingly, doesn't agree with those allegations.

"Defendants' request for class certification based on the asserted
claims for relief certainly represents a novel attempt to impose
liability based on theories that Righthaven maintains lack both
legal and factual support.  In fact, the asserted counterclaims
clearly represent defendants' attempt to capitalize on the
perceived groundswell of unfounded and pejorative comments
directed toward Righthaven and its alleged business model without
due consideration of the evidence presented in the company's
defense," said Shawn Mangano, Esq., a Las Vegas attorney
representing Righthaven.  "Righthaven will vigorously defend these
allegations, as it has in all contested actions, and
unquestionably expects to prevail once the asserted claims are
decided on their merits."

Eric Goldman, a copyright law expert who has been critical of
Righthaven, was doubtful the class-action plaintiffs would win
their requested declaration that their use of Denver Post material
was allowed under the doctrine of fair use.

"I can't recall previously seeing a class action lawsuit for a
declaration of fair use.  That is unlikely to succeed because fair
use is so defendant-specific, so the individualized determinations
in a fair use case probably outweigh the common issues," said
Mr. Goldman, associate professor at the Santa Clara University
School of Law in California and director of its High Tech Law
Institute.

"Abuse of process claims are very difficult to win, and once
again, many of those determinations will be individual defendant-
specific," he said.

Mr. Goldman noted, "In the interests of judicial economy, there
could be some value to consolidating the cases given the
duplicative issues being raised in each lawsuit."

Mr. Goldman has previously questioned whether Righthaven can be
profitable given all the defendants that are fighting back in
Nevada, Colorado and South Carolina.

"The class action counterclaim reinforces the point that each and
every lawsuit that Righthaven files can become an expensive drawn-
out battle, with the associated drag in Righthaven's
profitability," he said.  "I would be surprised if Righthaven's
initial pro forma had budgeted for the costs and hassles of
fighting a class action counterclaim, even if Righthaven defeats
it."

A Las Vegas attorney familiar with Righthaven told the Las Vegas
Sun and its sister newspaper VEGAS INC that some of the
counterclaim's assertions may not hold up.

For instance, the counterclaim complains about Righthaven failing
to send take-down notices before suing.  But takedown notices are
required only in limited circumstances where material was posted
by a third party and the Web site has registered an agent for
receipt of takedown notices with the U.S. Copyright Office.

This attorney said the counterclaim's charge that Righthaven
doesn't own the copyrights it sues over could be effective, if
judges buy that argument.  But there's so much ambiguity over
Righthaven's standing to sue that it's unlikely its conduct has
risen to the level of violating Colorado's unfair and deceptive
trade practice law as alleged in the counterclaim.

The attorney said it's obvious Righthaven was over-reaching in
demanding the seizure and forfeiture of Web site domain names --
widely criticized as a tool to coerce settlements -- but again he
doubted this amounted to an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Claims that Righthaven didn't properly investigate jurisdiction
and fair use issues before filing its suits are probably weak as
these are subjective, the attorney said.

In other Righthaven developments on May 17:

    * Righthaven may need to find a new local attorney in South
Carolina for its lone lawsuit there against blogger Dana Eiser.
Attorney Edward Fenno, Esq., filed court papers on May 17 saying
he's withdrawing from the case for undisclosed reasons.

    * U.S. District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas dismissed a
Righthaven lawsuit over Review-Journal material against Larry C.
Johnson after Johnson argued he was not served in time.
Mr. Johnson has a Web site called noquarterusa.net.  Mr. Mangano
said not much should be read into the dismissal, because
Righthaven had settled with Mr. Johnson before the case was closed
by Judge Mahan.

    * Colorado defendant Donald Douglas
(americanpowerblog.blogspot.com) filed a motion to dismiss the
Righthaven suit against him, complaining he "is the target of yet
another copyright trolling action by Righthaven."

Mr. Douglas said he suspects Righthaven doesn't have standing to
sue under its lawsuit contract with the Denver Post and asked the
court to require Righthaven to make the contract public.

"The plaintiff's business model is tantamount to legal extortion.
Righthaven's business model is based on coercion," Mr. Douglas
complained.  "Plaintiff's model is predicated on a corrupt and
fraudulent scheme, for Righthaven has no actual or legitimate
business interest in protecting copyrights or vindicating its
alleged legal rights."

Also filing a motion to dismiss were attorneys for Colorado
defendant Leland Wolf (itmakessenseblog.com), who similarly
argued: "Righthaven very likely is neither the owner nor exclusive
holder of any rights in the copyrighted work underlying this
lawsuit.  As such, Righthaven has suffered no injury or other
cognizable harm required for it to have standing.  Absent this
very basic requirement of standing, there is no subject matter
jurisdiction in this case, and this court must immediately dismiss
the case."

Mr. Wolf's attorneys filed a motion to conduct discovery so they
can see the lawsuit contract between Righthaven and the Denver
Post, writing, "obtaining Righthaven's agreement with (Denver Post
owner) MediaNews group is the fastest route to disposing of this
lawsuit."

Mr. Wolf is represented by attorneys with Randazza Legal Group's
Las Vegas office and:

          Andrew J. Contiguglia, Esq.
          400 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 830
          Denver, Colorado 80246
          Telephone: 303-780-7333
          E-mail: andrew@contiguglia.com

Righthaven has not yet responded to these defendants' motions.


SECURITIES AMERICA: Class Action Settlements Gets Preliminary OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Mitchell, writing for Financial Planning, reports that a
couple of class-action suits that once threatened to put
Securities America out of business are coming to a close.

A Dallas federal judge granted preliminary approval of an
$80-million class settlement on May 5.  The decision combines two
outstanding cases against the independent broker-dealer,
Billitteri and McCoy.  Investors had sued Securities America over
its role in the sale of private placements from Medical Capital
and Provident Royalties.

The judge, W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., is expected to ratify the
decision after a fairness hearing scheduled for July 25.

"The settlement is in no way an admission of guilt by Securities
America or our advisors," according to an e-mail statement from
Natalie Hadley, a spokeswoman at Securities America.  "We continue
to believe the company, our advisors and their clients were
victims of the alleged fraud perpetrated by the management of
Medical Capital and Provident Royalties."

In a hearing last March, Securities America officials had
testified that arbitration awards and legal costs from a class
action could cripple the firm.  Afterward, its parent company
Ameriprise Financial stepped in to back a settlement, only to
announce in April that it would sell the unit.

News of a sale set off a fresh round of recruiting activity for
advisors considering making a move, according to industry sources.
Securities America, though, says that advisor retention remains
high.  "The majority of advisors continue to tell us they are
committed to Securities America and plan to wait to evaluate the
opportunities a new owner presents," according to the statement
from Ms. Hadley.

"The sale gives us the opportunity to find a company where
Securities America's independent, entrepreneurial business culture
can grow within the independent broker-dealer space,"
Jim Nagengast, chief executive officer and president of Securities
America said in a letter to advisors, after the proposed sale was
announced in April.  "Securities America is financially strong and
stable.  As the Medical Capital and Provident litigation is put
behind us, we expect our excess net capital will remain stable or
grow."


SIMOS SIMOS: Sued for Denying Benefits to Temporary Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that workers filed a class-action lawsuit
on May 18 in federal court alleging a company that provides
temporary staffing for a Wal-Mart warehouse in Will County denied
workers benefits.

The workers, Willie Jones and LaTasha Davis, accuse Georgia-based
Simos Simos Insourcing Solutions of soliciting workers with the
promise of paid vacation.

"Apparently that was an empty promise," said Mr. Jones, who along
with Davis, was a temporary worker at the southwest suburban
Elwood warehouse.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself in two
putative class action lawsuits captioned Alvarez v. Haseko Homes,
Inc., and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., and Charles et al. v.
Haseko Homes, Inc., et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko
Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 -- Case 1; Ke Noho Kai
Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu
Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM -- Case 2;
North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company,
Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM --
Case 3; and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. and Third
Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 -- Case 4. Case 1
was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 were originally
filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19, 2009. The
Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the Company's
strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a housing
development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly
causing property damage. Case 1 is a putative class action brought
by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses. Case 1
was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko
Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-
1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new
representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the builders and
developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company, claiming that
either the Company's strap tie holdowns are defective in design or
manufacture or the Company failed to provide adequate warnings
regarding the products' susceptibility to corrosion in certain
environments. Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the
insurance company for the builders and developers against the
Company claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct
problems allegedly caused by the Company's products. Case 4, like
Case 1, is a putative class action brought by owners of allegedly
affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the
developer of the Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third
party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for
which Haseko may be liable are actually the fault of the Company.
None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought,
although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1
seeks punitive damages. The Company is currently investigating the
facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including,
among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the
severity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected;
the responsibility of the general contractor, various
subcontractors and other construction professionals for the
alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the
costs of repair, if needed. At this time, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable for any property damage allegedly
suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in connection with
the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiary Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., designs, engineers, and manufactures
structural connectors, anchors, and other products for new
construction, retrofitting, and do-it-yourself (DIY) markets.


SKYWEST INC: ExpressJet-Related Class Suits Settled & Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against Skywest, Inc., filed by Express Jet
stockholders in Texas have now been settled and dismissed,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Between August 5, 2010, and August 25, 2010, nine substantially
similar putative shareholder class action suits were filed by
individual ExpressJet Holdings stockholders in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas against ExpressJet and its directors. Many
of the petitions also name the Company, Atlantic Southeast and/or
Express Delaware Merger Co. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlantic
Southeast formed in connection with the ExpressJet Merger) as
defendants in the litigation.  The petitions filed in the Texas
State Actions generally allege that the ExpressJet Holdings
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the negotiation and approval of the definitive merger
agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions of the
ExpressJet Merger and that the SkyWest Defendants aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Texas State
Actions seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining the
ExpressJet Merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and rescission of any transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement which may be completed. On August 18, 2010,
plaintiff Rayside filed a motion to consolidate the Texas State
Actions into Case No. 2010-48784 in the first-filed court. On
August 20, 2010, plaintiffs Levine, Tejeda, Doraiswamy and
Swanepoel filed a similar motion in the 189th District Court. On
September 10, 2010, the 189th District Court ordered the
consolidation of the Texas State Actions with and into Case No.
2010-48784.

On September 20, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaint filed in the
Texas Federal Action includes substantially identical allegations
to and requests substantially the same relief as the petitions in
the Texas State Actions, but also includes allegations related to
the ExpressJet Holdings preliminary proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2010.

On October 8, 2010, counsel for the defendants in the Actions,
counsel for the plaintiff class in the Consolidated Texas State
Action and counsel for plaintiff in the Texas Federal Action
agreed to and executed a memorandum of understanding containing
the terms of an agreement in principle to resolve the Actions. The
MOU provides that, in consideration for the settlement of the
Actions, ExpressJet Holdings made certain disclosures in the
definitive proxy statement that was sent to the ExpressJet
Holdings stockholders soliciting approval of the ExpressJet
Merger. In the MOU, the defendants in the Actions acknowledged
that they considered the claims raised by the plaintiffs in the
Actions in connection with the disclosures contemplated by the
MOU. In exchange, the parties to the MOU agreed to use their best
efforts to draft and execute a definitive stipulation of
settlement that includes a plaintiff class consisting of all
record and beneficial holders of ExpressJet Holdings stock, other
than defendants in the Consolidated Texas State Action and any
firm, trust, corporation or other entity controlled by any such
defendant, during the period beginning on and including
December 2, 2009, through and including the date of the
consummation of the ExpressJet Merger.  Following a hearing on
April 14, 2011, the 189th District Court approved the proposed
settlement contemplated by the MOU and dismissed the Consolidated
Texas State Action with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the
MOU, the parties then sought and obtained dismissal of the Texas
Federal Action with prejudice and the plaintiff class released all
claims under federal and state law that were or could have been
asserted in the Actions or which arise out of or relate to the
transactions contemplated by the ExpressJet Merger.  All of the
parties to the Actions have now performed their respective
obligations under the MOU and the Company believes all outstanding
issues with respect to the Actions have been resolved.


SOLARWINDS INC: Says Claims in "Richardson" Suit Have No Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SolarWinds, Inc., said in its May 6, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011, that the claims asserted in the lawsuit filed by
Daniel Richardson in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the Company have no merit.

On October 15, 2010, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Daniel
Richardson against SolarWinds, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Richardson and a purported class of all persons who purchased or
acquired shares of common stock of SolarWinds, Inc., between
February 8, 2010 and July 21, 2010 and alleges that SolarWinds,
Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors violated the
securities laws by "issu[ing] materially false and misleading
statements regarding [SolarWinds, Inc.'s] operations and its
business and financial results and outlook" and, therefore,
"misled investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
material problems with . . . sales to the United States federal
government . . .[and] problems with [its] sales management team."

Because this lawsuit is in its initial stages, the Company says an
unfavorable outcome is not probable and the amount of loss cannot
be reasonably estimated.  The Company says it intends to contest
the claims associated with this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company
believes that the claims asserted have no merit.


SONY: Canadians Join PlayStation Network Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Hatherly, writing for DurhamRegion.com, reports that
PlayStation Network users around the world were left exposed after
the popular online network was attacked by hackers who stole
users' personal information.

Users' credit card numbers and bank account information may have
also been stolen in what may be one of the largest information
heists ever.  Representatives from Sony have confirmed through
press releases that information from all 77 million PlayStation
Network accounts is thought to have been compromised, as well as
information from 25 million Sony Online Entertainment accounts.

Mike Zwicker is one of several Canadians who has signed up to join
a class action law suit being filed against Sony as a result of
the breach.  The local realtor and Courtice resident said he is
more concerned with Sony's handling of the breach, than with the
actual breach itself.

"It was bound to happen," he said.  "The fact that hackers were
able to get my information, I'm not surprised, and that doesn't
bother me, but the fact that Sony took a week to tell me that my
information was compromised, that's the only problem I have.  They
should have said something. Even just monitoring my accounts, is
at least one step that I was denied by not being informed
promptly."

As is documented in its blog at http://blog.us.playstation.com
Sony first noticed there was a problem with the PlayStation
Network on April 19, but failed to notify anyone of the situation
until a week later, on April 26.

After noticing something was awry, Sony shut down the PlayStation
Network on April 20 to assess the damage and prevent additional
breaches.

For days, Sony claimed through messages displayed on users'
PlayStation consoles that the PlayStation Network had merely been
shut down for maintenance.  Mr. Zwicker said he believes the
company knew users' information had been exposed when the network
was initially shut down.

While Sony has offered free credit monitoring services to users in
the United States, as of May 13, Canadian users had yet to see any
offers of free credit monitoring materialize.

In an April 30 blog post, Sony pledged to give users a free one-
month trial subscription to premium service and some as yet
unnamed free downloads in an effort to mend fences and attract
users back to the PlayStation Network when it relaunches.

Mr. Zwicker said he is appalled at the compensation being offered,
noting regular subscriptions to the PlayStation Network are free
for users.  He said he's unsure what extra perks a premium
subscription would offer, but that he's sure he's not interested
in any of them.

"It's insulting," he said.  "I would almost rather nothing.
Offering a trial premium subscription is a joke. I don't use it,
it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything."

After announcing the initial breach, Sony announced in a press
release on May 2 that another breach had taken place on April 16,
prior to the first attack that began April 17.

In what Mr. Zwicker said he believes was an attempt to downplay
the second breach, a representative for Sony said in a press
release that the information stolen was from an outdated 2007 data
base.  Though the data base is four years old, Mr. Zwicker noted
that much, if not most, of the information stored in the data base
may still be relevant, as bank account numbers are rarely changed.

Had Sony notified users of the breach immediately, Mr. Zwicker
said he believes the total damage to the company's reputation
would be minimal in comparison to what is now unfolding.

Sony began restoring the online services May 15 and when it is
completely up and running, Mr. Zwicker plans to rejoin, using
false information.

"I didn't really trust them before, and now I certainly don't
trust them," he said.  "I certainly wouldn't trust them now to
inform anybody promptly of any issues."

A representative for McPhadden, Samac, Tuovi LLP, the law firm
representing the Canadian class action suit against Sony, said on
May 10 that she was unsure of how many people have signed up to
join the suit so far, but that there was quite a number of
applicants the last time she checked.

"We're accumulating data from people that are interested in
becoming a class member, and that's about it right now, at the
moment," she said.  "We're posting up-to-date information on our
website as it becomes available."

The law firm's Web site can be found at http://www.mcst.ca

A representative for Sony did not return requests for comment on
this article.


SONY: Faces 18th Suit Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Yolanda Trejo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case No.
11-cv-02408 (N.D. Calif. May 17, 2011), seeks to redress
SONY's: (1) suspension of SONY's Online Services; (2)
misrepresentations as to the adequacy of its online security
architecture; and (3) failure to adequately safeguard consumers'
private financial and personal information, including their names,
e-mail addresses, birthdates, mailing addresses, billing
addresses, purchase histories, passwords and logins, password
security answers, handles/online IDs, and credit card and debit
card information.

On April 19, 2011, the SONY Online Services suddenly shut down.
SONY Online Services users, like plaintiff, were unable to access
their services or utilize digital and online content.

On April 26, 2011, SONY finally disclosed that between April 17
and April 19, 2011, certain Playstation Network and Qriocity
service user account information was compromised with an illegal
and unauthorized intrusion into SONY's network, and that in
response to the intrusion, SONY said that it has temporarily
turned off PlayStation Network and Qriocity services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Scott W. Fisher, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTETN & FISHER LLP
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
           HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West - Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ted Trief, Esq.
          TR1EF & OLK
          150 East 58th Street, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 486-6060


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Obtains Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation obtained final approval in April
2011 of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit and a derivative action, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its executives and directors in 2008.  In
2009, these cases were consolidated into one case styled as In re
Spectranetics Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-2049
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and a group of investors identified as the Spectranetics Investor
Group was appointed lead plaintiff.

Several stockholder derivative actions were filed in 2008 and 2009
against the then directors of the Company, and the Company as a
nominal defendant in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado and the District Court of El Paso County,
Colorado.  These actions were ultimately consolidated into one
action styled as Kopp v. Geisenheimer, Case No. 08-2102 in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On June 22, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed in
principle to settle both the securities class action litigation
and the stockholder derivative case. Under the class action
settlement, the claims against Spectranetics and its officers and
directors were dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange
for a cash payment of $8.5 million funded by Spectranetics'
insurers. On September 7, 2010, the parties submitted a formal
Stipulation of Settlement to the court. The court granted final
approval of the settlement on April 4, 2011.

Under the derivative settlement, plaintiffs (on their own behalf
and derivatively on behalf of Spectranetics) dismissed the
stockholder derivative case with prejudice and released their
claims in exchange for formalizing certain corporate governance
procedures and payment of attorneys fees of $350,000. On
September 16, 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a formal Stipulation
of Settlement to the court. The court granted final approval of
the settlement on April 6, 2011.

The Company and the Individual Defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the class action litigation
and stockholder derivative case were without merit, and have
vigorously contested those claims. As part of the settlements, the
Company and the Individual Defendants denied any liability or
wrongdoing under the securities laws.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Age Discrimination Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging age discrimination against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., remains
pending in Kansas, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., Onex Corporation and The Boeing Company alleging age
discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing
sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex.  The complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, and seeks class-
action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
more than $1.5 billion in punitive damages.  The asset purchase
agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires Spirit to indemnify
Boeing for damages resulting from the employment decisions that
were made by the Company with respect to former employees of
Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly relate to the
involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such
employment decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court
granted defendants' dispositive motions, finding that the case
should not be allowed to proceed as a class action.  The
plaintiffs asked the District Court to reconsider its ruling and
on March 28, 2011, the District Court refused to do so.  Some of
the plaintiffs could possibly pursue individual claims or, could
decide to appeal the District Court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which could reverse
the District Court's June 30, 2010 ruling.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.  Management believes the resolution of this
matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in "Harkness" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., remains a defendant in the
litigation titled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al.,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early July
2007.  The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.  The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit.  The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.  The putative class consists of
approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit.  The
parties agreed to class certification and are currently in the
discovery process.  The sub-class members who have asserted claims
against the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June
2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were
participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of
vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a
union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work
for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.  Although there are many
claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit
entities, asserted under various theories, are (1) that the Spirit
plans wrongfully failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" to pension and
retiree medical benefits that were allegedly triggered by their
separation from employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs'
pension benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit
in that their claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not
being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation
from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits.  The plaintiffs
seek a declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement
pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction
ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages
pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to
indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may
incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset
purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition.  Spirit disputes
Boeing's position on indemnity.  Management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Expects Dismissal Plea Fully Briefed by Month-End
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc., expects that its motion to dismiss an
amended class action complaint will be fully briefed at the end of
this month, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, STRH, SunTrust Capital IX and
officers and directors of the Company and others were named in
three putative class actions arising out of the offer and sale of
approximately $690 million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust
Preferred Securities of SunTrust Banks, Inc. The complaints
alleged, among other things, that the relevant registration
statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented or omitted
material facts regarding the Company's allowance for loan and
lease loss reserves, the Company's capital position and its
internal risk controls. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses
in connection with their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind
their purchases of the TRUPs. These cases were consolidated under
the caption Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and on November 30, 2009, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed. On January 29, 2010,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. This motion was granted, with leave to amend, on
September 10, 2010. On October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint in an attempt to address the pleading
deficiencies identified in the Court's dismissal decision.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 21, 2011, and expects that this motion will be fully briefed
by the end of May 2011.


TASTY BAKING: Continues to Defend "Michelsen" Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit captioned Michelsen and Enochs v. Tasty Baking
Company, et al., before a state court in Pennsylvania in
connection with the Company's proposed merger with Flowers Foods,
Inc., and Flowers Bakeries, LLC, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

On April 10, 2011, the Company and its subsidiaries entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Bakeries, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Flowers.
Pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated April 12,
2011, Flowers Bakeries assigned all of its rights and obligations
under the Merger Agreement to Compass Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Flowers.  On April 21, 2011, Merger Sub
initiated a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock, of the Company at a purchase price of $4.00 per
share, net to the holder in cash, without any interest and subject
to any required withholding taxes.

On April 21, 2011, a Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class
Action Complaint was filed in Michelsen and Enochs v. Tasty Baking
Company, et al., No. 11-04-02487, pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The Michelsen
Complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's Board
of Directors, as well as the Company, Flowers and Flowers
Bakeries, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Flowers. The Michelsen Complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the Offer and the Merger, and further claims that Flowers and
Flowers Bakeries aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The Michelsen Complaint further alleges that the
Company's directors engaged in the waste of the Company's assets
by entering into the Merger Agreement. The Michelsen Complaint
also alleges that the Offer and Merger between the Company and
Flowers involves an unfair price, an unfair and self-serving sales
process with preclusive deal protection devices, and that the
Company's directors agreed to the transactions to benefit
themselves personally. The Michelsen Complaint seeks rescission of
the Merger Agreement and injunctive relief, including to enjoin
the Offer and Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees
and costs, in addition to other relief. The Company believes the
allegations of the Michelsen Complaint lack merit, and will
contest them vigorously.

Tasty Baking Company is a producer of sweet baked goods and is one
of the nation's oldest and largest independent baking companies
and has been in operation since 1914.


TASTY BAKING: "Ringheiser" Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed as Paul F. Ringheiser III v. Tasty Baking Company, et al. in
Pennsylvania arising from the merger of the Company with Flowers
Foods, Inc., and its subsidiary, according to the Company's May 6,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2011.

On April 10, 2011, the Company and its subsidiaries entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Bakeries, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Flowers.
Pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated April 12,
2011, Flowers Bakeries assigned all of its rights and obligations
under the Merger Agreement to Compass Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Flowers.  On April 21, 2011, Merger Sub
initiated a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock, of the Company at a purchase price of $4.00 per
share, net to the holder in cash, without any interest and subject
to any required withholding taxes.

On April 27, 2011, a Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class
Action Complaint was filed in Paul F. Ringheiser III  v. Tasty
Baking Company, et al., No. 110402927, pending in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The Ringheiser
Complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's Board
of Directors, as well as the Company, Flowers and Flowers
Bakeries.  The Ringheiser Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders in connection with the Offer and the
Merger, and further claims that Flowers and Flowers Bakeries aided
and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
Ringheiser Complaint further alleges that the Company's directors
engaged in the waste of the Company's assets by entering into the
Merger Agreement.  The Ringheiser Complaint also alleges that the
Offer and Merger between the Company and Flowers involves an
unfair price, an unfair and self-serving sales process with
preclusive deal protection devices, and that the Company's
directors agreed to the transactions to benefit themselves
personally. The Ringheiser Complaint alleges additionally that the
top-up option will have a dilutive effect on appraisal value.  The
Ringheiser Complaint seeks rescission of the Merger Agreement and
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Offer and Merger, and
an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
other relief. The Company believes the allegations of the
Ringheiser Complaint lack merit, and will contest them vigorously.

Tasty Baking Company is a producer of sweet baked goods and is one
of the nation's oldest and largest independent baking companies
and has been in operation since 1914.


UMG RECORDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Music Download Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that heavy
metal star Rob Zombie is leading a federal class action against
UMG Recordings, accusing the label of not paying artists to
license their music as digital downloads and ringtones.

The 21-page lawsuit notes that the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ruled in September that Universal Music
Group's Aftermath Records had underpaid on music download
royalties to Eminem's producers, and that the Supreme Court
effectively affirmed that decision in refusing to let the label
appeal in March.

Now Rob Zombie, born Robert Cummings, says it's his turn.  He is
joined as a plaintiff by his band White Zombie, folk musician Dave
Mason and rock band Whitesnake.

"Plaintiffs here allege, and the Ninth Circuit found, that digital
download and ringtone income received by UMG derives from a
license," according to the complaint.

"By this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to compel UMG to account to and
pay its other recording artists and music producers (i.e. those
not directly involved in the [Eminem] litigation) their rightful
share of the licensing income paid to UMG for downloads and
mastertones [ringtones] of the recorded music licensed by UMG to
these entities," the lawsuit states.

UMG seems to think that "the rule of law does not apply to" it,
the musicians claim, noting that the label told The New York Times
that the Eminem decision "sets no legal precedent."

The artists say UMG's conduct has had "substantial monetary
consequences" for them -- a difference that "may amount on a
class-wide basis to tens of millions of dollars or more each
year."

Zombie and the other musicians seek restitution, damages, an
injunction and declaratory relief for UMG's breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Zombie, et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-02431 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/20/zombie.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Cecilia Han, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3336
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  chan@lchb.com

               - and -

          David M. Given, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          Alexander H. Tuzin, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP
          50 California Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-398-0900
          E-mail: dmg@phillaw.com
                  nac@phillaw.com
                  aht@phillaw.com

               - and -

          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE & GIVEN, LLP
          1221 Second Street, 3rd Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: 310-832-0900
          E-mail: kmw@phillaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard B. Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          E-mail: lens@rgrdlaw.com


VENTAS INC: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over NHP Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc., is defending itself against class action lawsuits
filed after it acquired Nationwide Health Properties, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In the weeks following the announcement of the Company's
acquisition of Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., on February 28,
2011, purported stockholders of NHP filed seven lawsuits against
NHP and its directors. Six of these lawsuits also named Ventas,
Inc. as a defendant and five named the Company's subsidiary,
Needles Acquisition LLC, as a defendant. The purported stockholder
plaintiffs commenced these actions in two jurisdictions: the
Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County; and the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. All of these actions
were brought as putative class actions, and two also purport to
assert derivative claims on behalf of NHP. All of these
stockholder complaints allege that NHP's directors breached
certain alleged duties to NHP's stockholders by approving the
merger agreement with the Company, and certain complaints allege
that NHP aided and abetted those breaches. Those complaints that
name Ventas, Inc., and Needles Acquisition LLC allege that the
Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of certain
alleged duties by NHP's directors. All of the complaints request
an injunction of the merger. Certain of the complaints also seek
damages.

In the California State Court, the following actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on February 28, 2011, a
putative class action entitled Palma v. Nationwide Health
Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 3, 2011, a putative class
action entitled Barker v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et
al.; and on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Davis
v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., which was
subsequently amended on March 11, 2011 under the caption Davids v.
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al. Each action names NHP
and members of the NHP board of directors as defendants. The
Barker and Davids actions also name Ventas, Inc. as a defendant,
and the Davids action names Needles Acquisition LLC as a
defendant. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that NHP's
directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger
agreement between the Company and NHP because the proposed
transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and
provides the directors personal benefits not shared by NHP
stockholders, and the Barker and Davids actions allege that the
Company aided and abetted those purported breaches. Along with
other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the
closing of the proposed merger. On April 4, 2011, the defendants
demurred and moved to stay the Palma, Barker, and Davids actions
in favor of the parallel litigation in the Maryland State Court.
The plaintiffs opposed the defendants' motion to stay on April 29,
2011. On April 27, 2011, all three actions were consolidated
pursuant to a Stipulation and Proposed Order on Consolidation of
Related Actions signed by the parties on March 22, 2011. On
April 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to file a
consolidated amended complaint on or before May 12, 2011.

In the Maryland State Court, the following actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on March 7, 2011, a
putative class action entitled Crowley v. Nationwide Health
Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 10, 2011, a putative class
action entitled Taylor v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et.
al.; on March 17, 2011, a putative class action entitled Haughey
Family Trust v. Pasquale, et al.; and on March 31, 2011, a
putative class action entitled Rappoport v. Pasquale, et al. All
four actions name NHP, its directors, Ventas, Inc. and Needles
Acquisition LLC as defendants. All four actions allege, among
other things, that NHP's directors breached certain alleged duties
by approving the merger agreement between the Company and NHP
because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize
stockholder value and provides certain directors personal benefits
not shared by NHP stockholders and that the Company aided and
abetted those purported breaches. In addition to asserting direct
claims on behalf of a putative class of NHP shareholders, the
Haughey and Rappoport actions purport to bring derivative claims
on behalf of NHP, asserting breaches of certain alleged duties by
NHP's directors in connection with their approval of the proposed
transaction. All four actions seek to enjoin the proposed merger,
and the Taylor action seeks damages.

On March 30, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the
Maryland State Court entered an order consolidating the Crowley,
Taylor and Haughey actions. The Rappoport action was consolidated
with the other actions on April 15, 2011. On April 1, 2011,
pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court
entered an order: (i) certifying a class of NHP shareholders; and
(ii) providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
on April 19, 2011, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
April 29, 2011. Plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery on
April 19, 2011, and the defendants simultaneously opposed that
motion and moved for a protective order staying discovery on
April 26, 2011.

The Company believes that each of these actions is without merit.


VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Addair et al. v.
Processing Company, LLC, et al., remains stayed, according to
Vulcan Materials Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

A purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal
injury damages styled Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et
al., is pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West
Virginia.  The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from
exposure to perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product
manufactured by Vulcan's former Chemicals business, used in coal
sink labs.  Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry cleaning and
other industrial applications.  The perc manufacturing defendants,
including Vulcan, have filed a motion for summary judgment.  The
Court has yet to rule on the motion but in the interim has stayed
the litigation.  As such, there has been no activity on this
matter pending the Court's ruling.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Is Ongoing in Suits vs. Florida Rock
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuits
against Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock
Industries, Inc., according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries,
Inc., has been named as a defendant in a number of class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The lawsuits were filed by several
ready-mixed concrete producers and construction companies against
a number of concrete and cement producers and importers in
Florida.  There are now two consolidated amended complaints: (1)
on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete producers,
and (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The
other defendants include Cemex Corp., Votarantim Cimentos North
America and Titan America.  The complaints allege various
violations under the federal antitrust laws, including price
fixing and market allocations.

The Company says it has no reason to believe that Florida Rock is
liable for any of the matters alleged in the complaint, and it
intends to defend the case vigorously.  Discovery is ongoing.


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Removes "Hunter" TILA Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lee Hunter, individually and, on behalf of the general
public and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Wachovia
Mortgage Corporation, et al., Case No. CIV1100745 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Marin Cty..), was filed on February 8, 2011.  The Plaintiff
alleges several causes of action with respect to the processing of
plaintiff's home loan:

  -- Civil Code Section 2923/52, et seq., which requires a
     declaration attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the
     mortgagee has tried with due diligence to contact the
     borrower to discuss the borrower's financial situation and to
     explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosures.
     Plaintiff avers that Wachovia has never attempted to comply
     with the provisions of Civil Code Section 2923.52.

  -- Regulation Z and the Federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").
     As a result of the violations by the defendants under TILA
     and Regulation Z, plaintiff says that he is entitled to
     rescind the loan transaction and to terminate any security
     interest in the Subject Property.

  -- California Business Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
     Defendants continue to engage in unlawful business practices,
     including violations of TILA and Regulation Z, which are
     unfair competition within the meaning of B & P Code Section
     17200, et seq.

  -- Breach of Contract.  Defendants, and each of them, breached
     the contract when they initiated foreclosure proceedings
     on plaintiff's home prior to attempting to contact the
     plaintiff to discuss, in good faith, the plaintiff's
     financial condition and explore options in avoiding
     foreclosure.

  -- Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Plaintiff Samuel Lee Hunter is the fee owner of the real property
situated in the City of Greenbrae, Marin County, California,
commonly known as 310 Corte Sereno.  The Subject Property is the
principal residence of the plaintiff.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which designates its main office as Sioux
Falls, South Dakota for legal purposes, is the primary U.S.
operating subsidiary of Wells Fargo Company, a multinational
diversified financial services company with operations around the
world.

On the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Wachovia
Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by
merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest N.A., erroneously sued as
"Wachovia Corporation", on May 16, 2011, removed the lawsuit to
the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 11-cv-02398 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell K. Marne, Esq.
          THE MARNE LAW GROUP, P.C.
          30 North San Pedro Road, Suite 195
          San RafaeL CA 94903
          Telephone; (415) 499-8100
          E-mail: RusseIl@Marne.com

The Defendant, Wachovia Mortgage, is represented by:

          Christopher A. Carr, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Franklin, Esq.
          ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN,
          CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
          199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2459
          Telephone: (626) 535-1900
          E-mail: ccarr@afrct.com
                  kfranklin@afrct.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: ACTONEL-Related Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company is a defendant in
approximately 97 cases and a potential defendant with respect to
approximately 67 unfiled claims involving a total of approximately
171 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating to the Company's
bisphosphonate prescription drug ACTONEL.  The claimants allege,
among other things, that ACTONEL caused them to suffer
osteonecrosis of the jaw, a rare but serious condition that
involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or
atypical fractures of the femur.  All of the cases have been filed
in either federal or state courts in the United States.  The
Company is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations.  The 67 unfiled claims involve potential plaintiffs
that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling agreement, to postpone the
filing of their claims against the Company in exchange for the
Company's agreement to suspend the statutes of limitations
relating to their potential claims.  In addition, the Company is
aware of four purported product liability class actions that were
brought against the Company in provincial courts in Canada
alleging, among other things, that ACTONEL caused the plaintiffs
and the proposed class members who ingested ACTONEL to suffer
atypical fractures or other side effects.  It is expected that
these plaintiffs will seek class certification.  The Company is
reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

Sanofi, which co-promotes ACTONEL with the Company on a global
basis pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, is a defendant in
many of the Company's ACTONEL product liability cases.  In some of
the cases, manufacturers of other bisphosphonate products are also
named as defendants.  Plaintiffs have typically asked for
unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's
fees.  The Company cannot at this time predict the outcome of
these lawsuits and claims or their financial impact.  Under the
Collaboration Agreement, Sanofi has agreed to indemnify the
Company, subject to certain limitations, for 50% of the losses
from any product liability claims in Canada relating to ACTONEL
and for 50% of the losses from any product liability claims in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico relating to ACTONEL brought prior to April 1,
2010, which would include ONJ-related claims that were pending as
of March 31, 2010. Pursuant to the April 2010 amendment to the
Collaboration Agreement, the Company will be fully responsible for
any product liability claims in the U.S. and Puerto Rico relating
to ACTONEL brought on or after April 1, 2010.  The Company may be
liable for product liability, warranty or similar claims in
relation to PGP products, including ONJ-related claims that were
pending as of the closing of the PGP Acquisition.  The Company's
agreement with P&G provides that P&G will indemnify the Company
for 50% of the Company's losses from any such claims pending as of
October 30, 2009, subject to certain limits.

The Company currently maintains product liability insurance
coverage for claims between $25 million and $170 million, subject
to certain exclusions, and otherwise is self-insured.  The
Company's insurance may not apply to, among other things, damages
or defense costs related to the HT or ACTONEL-related claims,
including any claim arising out of HT or ACTONEL products with
labeling that does not conform completely to FDA approved
labeling.  Although it is impossible to predict with certainty the
outcome of any litigation, an unfavorable outcome in these
proceedings is not anticipated.  An estimate of the range of
potential loss, if any, to the Company relating to these
proceedings is not possible at this time.

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

                            *********

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  * * *