CAR_Public/110526.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 103

                             Headlines

AK STEEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend "Patrick" Suit in Ohio
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend "Lipker" Suit in Kentucky
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Suits
AK STEEL: Time to Appeal Butler Retiree Settlement Expires

AK STEEL: Middletown Settlement Cut OPEB Liability by $1 Billion
AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Sales Practices
AMERICAN SOCIETY: Accused of Engaging in Price-Fixing Agreement
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in DBCP Class Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Faces Third Class Action Over Free Game Downloads

AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Class Certification to Yaz MDL
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal From Judgment in Class Suit Pending
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Labor Class Suit
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Deepwater Horizon Suits Still Pending

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Units Continue to Defend "Leathermon" Suit
CON-WAY INC: Plaintiffs in EWA Suit Have Time to Appeal Judgment
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
CRANE CO: Defends Homeowners' Class Suit Over Loss of Value
CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Merrimac-Related Class Suit

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Class Action.org Offers Implant Case Review
DIONEX CORP: Parties Agree to Cease Proceedings in "Weisberg" Suit
DRUG RETAILERS: Balks at Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Case
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Hearing on Class Notice Set for June 1
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Wage Claim Class Suits

FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation in D.C.
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Over Emissions
FIRST HORIZON: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee

GE CAPITAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit Still Pending
GMX RESOURCES: Disputes Claims in Securities Class Action
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Mortgagors
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face Auction-Rate Securities Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns-Related Matters Still Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-Related Litigation Still Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Briefing in Interchange Litigation to End in June

JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Madoff-Related Suit Due June 29
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in MBS-Related Suits Still Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plea to Dismiss Mortgage Foreclosure Suit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in Securities Lending Suit Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Court Okay of SCRA-Related Suit Settlement
KEYCORP: Appeals in "Taylor" Suit Pending; "Metyk" Suit Stayed
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
KRAFT FOODS: Settles Attica Pollution Class Action for $8.1 Mil.

LABARGE INC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
LAWNMOWER MANUFACTURERS: Class Action Settlement Payments Begin
MCKESSON CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Massachusetts
MEDIVATION INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Securities Class Suit

MEMC ELECTRONIC: Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit Still Pending
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Wants Insurers to Cover $3.2MM Lawyer Fee Award
NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Court Approval of MDL Settlement
OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Class Action Suit in New Jersey
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC: Faces Suits Over Homer City's Air Emission
PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Imagitas Suits
PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss NECA-IBEW Suit
PORTLAND GENERAL: Marion County Class Suits Remain Pending

PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
QWEST COMMS: Still Pursuing Settlements of Fiber-Optic Suits
QWEST COMMS: Retirees' Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
SAUER-DANFOSS: Court Awards Plaintiffs $75,000 in Fees & Expenses
SLM CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Arthur" Suit

SONY COMPUTER: Faces 19th Suit Over Private Data Breach
STEEL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Direct Purchasers' Suits
SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
T-MOBILE: Judge Compels Arbitration in Consumer Class Action
TEKELEC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in North Carolina

TELLABS INC: Awaits Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Settlement
THE CHARLES SCHWAB: Obtains Final OK of YieldPlus Fund Settlement
THE CHARLES SCHWAB: "Smit" Suit Dismissed; Northstar Suit Pending
THE CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Ill.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Pending

U.S. BANCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Fee Suit Remains Pending
UNITED BANKSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Practices Suits
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Miscalculates Medicare Coverage, Suit Claims
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit

WAL-MART: Sup. Court Justices Debate Class Certification Merits

* Supreme Court Upholding Arbitration Ruling to Hurt Consumers
* DRI Comments on AT&T & Wal-Mart Class Action Lawsuits




                             *********

AK STEEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation is awaiting a ruling with respect to
a pending motion for partial summary judgment filed by a plaintiff
in a purported class action in Ohio, according to the Company's
May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The
complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members.  The plaintiff and the other
purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the
plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from
similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class
action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on
previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the
Company.  There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded
from the prior litigation and the potential additional
distributions to them at issue in the litigation total
approximately $3.2 million, plus potential interest.  The
defendants filed their answer to the complaint on March 22, 2010.
On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification.  On January 24, 2011, that motion was granted.  On
March 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.  No trial date has yet been set. The defendants intend
to contest this matter vigorously.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend "Patrick" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A federal court has not yet set a trial date in connection with a
purported class action filed by Judith A. Patrick against AK Steel
Corporation, according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due
to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.
On December 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the
complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan
language had been properly interpreted.  On September 28, 2007,
the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a
Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and
that the defendants' motion be denied.  The defendants filed
timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment
to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation.  The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the
Court on October 27, 2008.  The case is proceeding with respect to
discovery on the issue of damages.  No trial date has been set.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend "Lipker" Suit in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself in a
purported class action filed by Margaret Lipker before a Kentucky
federal court, according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a similar claim was filed
against AK Steel by Margaret Lipker in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050.
The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel
incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse
benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which
was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick
Litigation).  The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.  On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker
Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of
approximately $463 per month.  AK Steel appealed that February 23,
2010, decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit on March 11, 2010, Case No. 10-5298.  The issues in the
appeal have been fully briefed by the parties.  In addition,
counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation
filed an amicus curiae brief on July 20, 2010, on the ground that
the decision in the Lipker Litigation could impact the merits of
the issues in the Patrick Litigation.  The amicus curiae brief
requested the Court of Appeals to affirm the district court's
decision in the Lipker Litigation on the issue of plan
interpretation and liability.  The defendants intend to contest
both of these matters vigorously.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed that no trial date has been
set in purported class actions in Illinois and Tennessee alleging
that the Company conspired with other steel producers to fix
prices, 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 September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding.  The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.  An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010.  On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs are
companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly
or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport
to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United
States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least
as early as January 2005 to the present. The complaints allege
that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict
output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high
prices with respect to steel products in the United States.  On
January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints.  On June 12, 2009, the
court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced.  No trial date has been set.  AK Holding
intends to contest this matter vigorously.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Time to Appeal Butler Retiree Settlement Expires
----------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal approval of the settlement between AK Steel
Holding Corporation and the hourly and salaried retirees
represented by the Butler Armco Independent Union has expired,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did not have a
right to make changes to their healthcare benefits.  On June 29,
2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The named
plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action sought, among other things,
injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of a
proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its union.  The proposed class the plaintiffs sought to
represent consisted originally of all union-represented retirees
of AK Steel other than those retirees who were included in the
class covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits
Litigation.  On October 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled
January 2010 changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect.  On
January 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and
barring AK Steel from effecting any further benefit reductions or
new healthcare charges for Butler Works hourly retirees until
final judgment in the case.  Absent a reversal of the decision to
impose the preliminary injunction, the negotiated changes to
retiree healthcare for the Company's Butler Works retirees would
be rescinded and the Company's OPEB obligations would increase by
approximately $145.0 million based upon then-current valuation
assumptions.  This amount reflects the value of the estimated
additional healthcare and welfare benefits AK Steel would pay out
with respect to the Butler hourly retirees.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement with the Butler Works hourly retirees who
initiated the litigation.  The participants in the Hourly Class
Settlement consist generally of all retirees and their surviving
spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from
AK Steel on or before December 31, 2006.  Pursuant to the Hourly
Class Settlement, AK Steel agreed to continue to provide company-
paid health and life insurance to Hourly Class Members through
December 31, 2014, and to make combined lump sum payments totaling
$86.0 million to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association
trust and to plaintiffs' counsel.  More specifically, AK Steel
will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as follows:
$21.4 million on August 1, 2011; $30.0 million on July 31, 2012;
and $26.0 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance of the $86.0
million in lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs' attorneys
on August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect
to attorneys' fees.  Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will
transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Hourly
Class Members under AK Steel's applicable health and welfare plans
and will have no further liability for any claims incurred by the
Hourly Class Members after December, 31, 2014, relating to their
OPEB obligations.  The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all
such future OPEB obligations to the Hourly Class Members.
Trustees of the VEBA Trust will determine the scope of the
benefits to be provided to the Hourly Class Members.

After reaching the Hourly Class Settlement, the Company was
notified that a separate group of retirees from the Butler Works
who were previously salaried employees and who had been members of
the Butler Armco Independent Salaried Union were asserting similar
claims and desired to settle those claims on a basis similar to
the settlement with the hourly employees. The participants in this
group consist generally of all retirees and their surviving
spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from
AK Steel anytime from January 1, 1985, through September 30, 2006.
If the Salaried Class Members were to prevail on their claims, the
Company's OPEB would have increased by approximately $8.5 million
based upon then-current valuation assumptions.  This amount
reflects the value of the estimated additional healthcare and
welfare benefits AK Steel would pay out with respect to the
Salaried Class Members.  After negotiation with counsel
representing the Salaried Class Members, the Company also reached
a tentative settlement agreement with the Salaried Class Members.

Pursuant to the Salaried Class Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
Salaried Class Members through December 31, 2014, and to make
combined lump sum payments totaling $5.0 to a VEBA Trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel.  AK Steel will make three cash contributions
to the VEBA Trust as follows: approximately $1.2 million on
August 1, 2011; approximately $1.7 million on July 31, 2012; and
approximately $1.6 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance of the
$5.0 million in lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs'
attorneys on August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs' obligations with
respect to attorneys' fees.  Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel
will transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the
Salaried Class Members under the Company's applicable health and
welfare plans and will have no further liability for any claims
incurred by the Salaried Class Members after December 31, 2014,
relating to their OPEB obligations.  The VEBA Trust will be
utilized to fund all such future OPEB obligations to the Salaried
Class Members.  Trustees of the VEBA Trust will determine the
scope of the benefits to be provided to the Salaried Class
Members.

The tentative settlements with both the Hourly Class Members and
the Salaried Class Members were subject to approval by the Court.
On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to
File a Second Amended Complaint and an Unopposed Amended Motion
for an Order Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the parties
jointly filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement Agreements and Proposed Class Notice.  On
September 24, 2010, the Court held a hearing on these motions and
issued orders granting the joint motion for preliminary approval
of the Butler Retiree Settlement, conditionally certifying the two
classes, and allowing the filing of a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint was deemed filed as of September 24,
2010 and defined the class represented by the plaintiffs to
consist of the Class Members.  Notice of the settlement was sent
to all Class Members on October 1, 2010.  On December 20, 2010,
the parties filed their motions for approval of the Butler Retiree
Settlement.  Plaintiffs further filed a motion for approval of
attorney fees and expenses.  A Fairness Hearing with respect to
the settlement occurred on January 10, 2011.  On January 10, 2011,
the Court issued written orders granting final approval to the
Butler Retiree Settlement, as well as the proposed attorney fee
award.  The final judgment formally approving the Butler Retiree
Settlement and the attorney fee award also was entered on
January 10, 2011.  The Butler Retiree Settlement became effective
on that date.  No appeal from that Judgment has been taken and the
time for filing such an appeal has expired.

The effect of the Butler Retiree Settlement on the Company's total
OPEB liability was to increase the amount of that liability by
approximately $29.6 million in the first quarter of 2011.  A one-
time, pre-tax charge of $14.2 million was recorded in the first
quarter of 2011 to reverse previous amortization of the prior plan
amendment.  In addition, the Company recorded a one-time charge of
$9.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2010 related to the Butler
Retiree Settlement.  The remaining increase in the benefit
obligation was recognized in other comprehensive income and will
be amortized into earnings over approximately five years.  The
Company's only remaining liability with respect to the OPEB
obligations to the Class Members will be to provide existing
company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members through
December 31, 2014, and to contribute the payments due to the VEBA
Trust under the settlements. The Company's OPEB liability will be
reduced after each of the annual contributions to the VEBA Trust
under the terms of the settlements.  In addition, its OPEB
liability will be reduced by the amounts of the continued
payments of uncapped benefits through December 31, 2014.  After
December 31, 2014, the Company will have no liability or
responsibility with respect to OPEB obligations to the Class
Members.  For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's
OPEB obligations related to the Class Members will be deemed to
have occurred at that time.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Middletown Settlement Cut OPEB Liability by $1 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed that the "Middletown
Retiree Settlement" it entered with former hourly and salaried
members of the Armco Employees Independent Federation ultimately
reduced the Company's total other post-employment benefit
liability by approximately $1 billion, according to the Company's
May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its
current retirees who formerly were hourly and salaried members of
the Armco Employees Independent Federation that AK Steel was
terminating their existing healthcare insurance benefits plan and
implementing a new plan more consistent with current steel
industry practices that would require the retirees to contribute
to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective October 1,
2006.  On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and
salaried members of the AEIF filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1-06CV0468, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make
changes to their healthcare benefits.  On October 8, 2007, the
Company announced that it had reached a tentative settlement of
the claims of the retirees in the Middletown Retiree Action.  The
Middletown Retiree Settlement was opposed by certain objecting
class members, but their objections were rejected by the trial
court and on appeal.  After the appeal of the objecting
participants was dismissed, the Middletown Retiree Settlement
became final on July 6, 2009.

Under terms of the Middletown Retiree Settlement, AK Steel has
transferred to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust
all OPEB obligations owed to the covered retirees under AK Steel's
applicable health and welfare plans and will have no further
liability for any claims incurred by those retirees after the
effective date of the Middletown Retiree Settlement relating to
their OPEB obligations.  The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund
the future OPEB obligations to the covered retirees.  Under the
terms of the Middletown Retiree Settlement, AK Steel was obligated
to initially fund the VEBA Trust with a contribution of $468.0
million in cash in March 2008.  AK Steel further committed under
the Middletown Retiree Settlement to make three subsequent annual
cash contributions of $65.0 million each, for a total contribution
of $663.0 million.  AK Steel has timely made all of these cash
contributions, with the final contribution of $65.0 million made
on March 1, 2011.  The Company has no further obligation to the
VEBA Trust and no further liability to the retirees covered by the
VEBA Trust with respect to their OPEB claims.

Prior to the Middletown Retiree Settlement, the Company's total
OPEB liability for all of its retirees was approximately $2.0
billion.  Of that amount, approximately $1.0 billion was
attributable to the retirees covered by the Middletown Retiree
Settlement.  Immediately following the judgment approving that
Settlement, the Company's total OPEB liability was reduced by
approximately $339.1 million.  This reduction in the Company's
OPEB liability is being treated as a negative plan amendment and
amortized as a reduction to net periodic benefit cost over
approximately eleven years.  This negative plan amendment has
resulted in an annual net periodic benefit cost reduction of
approximately $30.0 million in addition to the lower interest
costs associated with the lower OPEB liability.  Upon payment on
March 4, 2008, of the initial $468.0 million contribution by AK
Steel to the VEBA Trust in accordance with the terms of the
Middletown Retiree Settlement, the Company's total OPEB liability
was reduced further to approximately $1.1 billion.  The Company's
total OPEB liability was further reduced by the three $65.0
million payments.  In total, the $663.0 million Middletown Retiree
Settlement ultimately reduced the Company's total OPEB liability
by approximately $1.0 billion.

For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's OPEB
obligations related to the Class Members was deemed to have
occurred when AK Steel made the last $65.0 million payment called
for under the Middletown Retiree Settlement.  In the first quarter
of 2011, the Company recognized the settlement accounting at the
date of the final payment, which resulted in a non-cash gain of
$14.0 million for a portion of the accumulated gains measured at
that date.  The amount recognized was prorated based on the
portion of the total liability settled as of March 2008.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati), AK Steel
operates seven steel plants and two tube manufacturing plants
across four states -- Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Sales Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to American Equity Investment Life Holding Company's May
6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, it
continues to defend itself against two class action lawsuits
alleging improper sales practices.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims.  The Company is currently a defendant in two
lawsuits, one class action and one purported class action,
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.  In February 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
with the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, which is subject
to final court approval.  The pending purported class action
lawsuit is in the pre-litigation and discovery stages and the
Company does not have sufficient information to make an assessment
of the plaintiffs' claims for liability or damages. The plaintiffs
are seeking undefined amounts of damages or other relief,
including punitive damages, which are difficult to quantify and
cannot be estimated based on the information currently available.
While the Company is uncertain as to the ultimate outcome of the
pending purported class action lawsuit, there can be no assurance
that such litigation, or any other pending or future litigation,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, or results of operations.

The two cases are (i) Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et. al., in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court,
San Francisco, California (complaint filed November 29, 2004) (the
"SLO Case") and (ii) McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case").

The plaintiffs in the SLO Case represent a class of individuals
who are California residents age 65 and older and who either
purchased their annuity from the Company through a co-defendant
marketing organization or who purchased one of a defined set of
particular annuities issued by the Company.  The named plaintiffs
in this case are: Chalys M. Stephens and John P. Stephens.
Following a mediation conducted on January 21, 2011, the Company
reached a settlement in principal with the plaintiffs. Preliminary
approval of the settlement was issued by the court on March 1,
2011, with the fairness hearing for final court approval scheduled
for May 9, 2011.  Although the Company anticipates final court
approval of the settlement, there can be no assurance of such
final approval.  The settlement, if final court approval is
received, will provide a total settlement benefit of $36 million
to past and present policyholders who are members of the class
and, if awarded by the court, will provide for attorneys' fees
payable to the plaintiffs' counsel of up to $11 million,
litigation expenses in an amount up to $950,000, and incentives of
$25,000 payable to each of the two class representatives.  The net
charge to operations for the settlement (after related reductions
in amortization of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy
acquisition costs and income taxes) was $27.3 million for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company.  The named plaintiffs in this
consolidated case are Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and
through Gary S. Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush
by and through Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through
Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller.  The allegations generally
attack the suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to
persons over the age of 65.  The plaintiffs seek recessionary and
injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of
profits on behalf of all class members under California Business &
Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary
duty; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; and other
pecuniary damages under California Civil Code section 1750 and
California Welfare & Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.  The
Company is vigorously defending against both class action status
as well as the underlying claims.


AMERICAN SOCIETY: Accused of Engaging in Price-Fixing Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports that a woman who donated eggs for
assisted reproductive services says in a class-action complaint
that some purchasers of donors' services have wrongfully engaged
in a price-fixing agreement.

The defendants, organizations that provide assisted reproductive
technologies to people trying to conceive, have violated the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, according to the complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi says she and other women have, in
providing their own eggs for assisted reproductive procedures,
been unfairly compensated for their "time, inconvenience, labor
and discomfort."

Ms. Kamakahi seeks to represent a class that would consist of
"[a]ll women who, at any time during the time period starting four
years prior to the filing date of this complaint to the present
. . . sold donor services for the purpose of supplying . . . eggs
to be used for reproductive purposes, within the United States and
its territories, to any defendant."

The defendants are the American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Pacific
Fertility Center.

ASRM director of public affairs, Sean Tipton, said the
organization considers it a frivolous lawsuit and expects the
court to treat it as such.

Ms. Kamakahi would also like the District Court to certify a
defendant class, consisting of fertility clinics and agencies that
are members of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology or
adhere to ASRM guidelines.

The complaint excludes as defendants clinics and agencies in
Indiana, which has a statutory cap on such payments.

The defendants control over 85% of the purchasing market for donor
services in the United States, which involves annual sales of
about $80 million, according to the complaint.

In 2000, the defendants decided to suppress the price paid for
donor services, the suit says.

According to ASRM and SART guidelines, "a single donor will not be
paid more than $5,000 without written justification and payments
of $10,000 or more are not appropriate," the complaint alleges.

Ms. Kamakahi says the violation of the Sherman Act is apparent.
In the complaint, she quotes a commentator:

"This naked price-fixing of egg donor compensation is so unusual
in the modern U.S. regulatory environment of unrestrained
competition that the most intriguing question it raises is not
whether it violates the Sherman Act -- under existing precedent it
does.  Rather, the relevant question is how, given the
government's substantial enforcement resources and the presence of
an active and entrepreneurial plaintiffs' bar, this buyers' cartel
has managed to survive unchallenged since at least 2000."

The relief the plaintiff seeks includes certification of the suit
as a class action, a determination that the defendants are in
violation of the Sherman Act and judgment three times the amount
of the plaintiffs' damages.

Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al., No.
11 CV 1781, complaint filed (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011).


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in DBCP Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit filed against several
companies, including American Vanguard Corporation, relating to
alleged personal injuries arising from exposure to the
agricultural chemical 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 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 October 1997, AMVAC was served with a Complaint in which it was
named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit,
State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit,
State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled Patrickson, et. al.
v. Dole Food Co., et. al, alleging damages sustained from injuries
caused by plaintiffs' exposure to the agricultural chemical 1,2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane while applying the product in their native
countries.  Other named defendants include: Dole Food Co., Shell
Oil Company, and Dow Chemical Company.  The ten named plaintiffs
are citizens of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama,
and Ecuador.  Punitive damages are sought against each defendant.
The plaintiffs were banana workers and allege that they were
exposed to DBCP in applying the product in their native countries.
The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other
workers so exposed in these four countries.  The plaintiffs allege
sterility and other injuries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion
for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on
the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in
1995.  All defendants joined in this motion.  The court granted
this motion on June 9, 2009.  Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully
argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases.
On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for
reconsideration.  Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered
on July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  This appeal is presently pending.  In March
2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that
plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute
of limitations.  The Company does not believe that a loss is
either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not
set up a loss contingency with respect thereto.

American Vanguard Corp., through its subsidiaries, develops and
markets products for agricultural and commercial uses primarily in
the United States.  The Newport Beach, Calif.-based Company
manufactures and formulates chemicals for crops, human, and animal
protection.


APPLE INC: Faces Third Class Action Over Free Game Downloads
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of
plaintiffs' lawyers claim Apple is "preying on young children" who
click on treasure chests and cute animals without any idea that
their parents' Apple accounts are being charged, said Michael Boni
of Boni & Zack.  On Monday 16, his firm filed its third class
action against Apple in the last month, claiming in a San
Francisco U.S. district court complaint that "highly addictive"
free game downloads are "designed solely to lure minors to
purchase game currency."

The complaint was filed on behalf of Twilah Monroe, whose five-
year-old daughter allegedly spend $99.99 on those Fishies pearls.
An April 22 complaint claimed Kathleen Koffman's nine-year-old son
spent almost $670 on virtual weaponry for the games X-Mas Resort
and F.A.S.T.  In the first of the purported kids' gaming class
actions, filed on April 11, plaintiffs lawyers assert that Garen
Meguirian's nine-year-old daughter spent $200 on Zombie Toxins,
Gems, and City Cash for games including Zombie Cafe.

Some pretty big-name plaintiffs' lawyers are taking up the cause.
SeegerWeiss appears on all of the complaints.  So do Boni & Zack;
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky; and the Law Offices of
Benjamin Edelman.  Berger & Montague is on the third complaint.

"We think this is a pretty widespread class," said Boni, who said
he filed the first case after Meguirian, a friend, told him of his
daughter's purchases.

The complaints assert that Apple changed its practices after the
Federal Trade Commission began investigating complaints about
kids' downloading late in 2010.  Apple now requires passwords for
game-related purchases, but the plaintiffs' lawyers say kids are
still able to shop without parents' knowledge.

Apple is represented by:

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

Ms. Preovolos didn't respond to a call and e-mail requesting
comment.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of class action lawsuits involving the
initial public offering of Autobytel, Inc., and Autoweb.com, Inc.,
remain pending, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which
is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  This
action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that
the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket
at predetermined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for
the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in
violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the
parties in the Autobytel case, reached a settlement.  The insurers
for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Autobytel.
On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  Two appeals by objectors to the settlement are
proceeding before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.
Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  If
the settlement does not survive appeal, and Autobytel is found
liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autobytel's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's
financial statements could be material.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against Autoweb.com, Inc., certain of Autoweb's former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which
is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  It
purports to allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in Autoweb's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated cases, including Autoweb's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Autoweb.  On October 6, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  Objectors to the
settlement filed six notices of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and one petition seeking
permission to appeal.  Two appeals by objectors to the settlement
are proceeding before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.
Due to inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  If the
settlement does not survive that appeal, and Autoweb is found
liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autoweb's insurance coverage and the impact on Autobytel's
financial statements could be material.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Class Certification to Yaz MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Wajert, Esq. at Dechert LLP, writing for the law firm's Mass
Tort Defense, reports that the federal judge managing the
multidistrict litigation over the birth control pill Yaz --
In re: Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:09-md-02100 (S.D. Ill.)
-- declined to certify a proposed national class of users
allegedly harmed by the contraceptive, and struck the class action
allegations from the complaint.

In the opinion, Judge Herndon noted that named plaintiff Plaisance
was a 44-year-old citizen of the State of Louisiana who was
prescribed YAZ in May of 2006 by her physician.  During the summer
of 2006, plaintiff was hospitalized due to a deep vein thrombosis
in her left leg.  She alleged that the DVT, as well as other
adverse effects, were caused by her ingestion of YAZ.  Plaintiff
sought class certification of a nationwide class of YAZ purchasers
who contracted DVT, but in the alternative proposed separate
state-wide classes.

Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, strict product
liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, medical monitoring, and fraud and deceit.
Plaintiff maintained that the putative nationwide and state wide
classes met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In addition, plaintiff
contended that the unitary application of the law of Louisiana was
appropriate and somehow resolved issues related to the application
of the substantive laws of multiple jurisdictions.

Here, the Court's analysis began and ended with Rule 23(b)(3); it
was "evident" to the court that individual questions of law and
fact predominated, and therefore the case was not manageable as a
nationwide or statewide class action.  Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance and manageability requirements also precluded any
proposed "issue" certification under Rule 23(c)(4).

To satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must
show that common questions of factor law predominate over
individual questions and that class treatment is superior to other
available methods of adjudication.  Assessing the predominance
factor requires consideration of the substantive elements of a
plaintiff's claims and the proof necessary to establish those
elements.  In addition, a court must consider issues pertaining to
manageability and choice of law.

On that last point, this action was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Therefore, Louisiana choice of law rules governed the complaint.
See Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 599 F.3d 728, 732 (7th Cir.
2010).  Under Louisiana's codified choice of law rules, the
substantive law of each plaintiff's home state would govern the
merits of the case.  Accordingly, the laws of all fifty states
plus the District of Columbia would be applicable to the putative
nationwide class members' claims.  Amongst the states, there are
differences in the law of product liability as well as in the
applicable theories of recovery and their subsidiary concepts.
These differences, said the court, "are not insignificant."  See
e.g., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1300-1301 (7th Cir.
1995).  Indeed, "such differences have led [the Seventh Circuit]
to hold that other warranty, fraud, or products-liability suits
may not proceed as nationwide classes").  In re
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1015. See also Isaacs v.
Sprint Corp., 261 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2001); Szabo v. Bridgeport
Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2001); In re Rhone-Poulenc
Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir.1995).  In the class action
context, differences in state law cannot be swept away by electing
to apply the law of a single state to all class members' claims.
See Id. at 1017-1020.  Although the unitary application of a
single state's law might promote efficiency, it would also
constitute an unacceptable violation of principles of federalism.
Differences across states may be costly for courts and litigants
alike, but they are a fundamental aspect of our federal republic
and must not be overridden in a quest to clear the queue in court,
said the court.

The court went on to correctly note that mass product liability
suits are rarely sustainable as class actions.  Establishing the
requisite elements of product liability claims sounding in strict
liability, negligence, warranty, and/or fraud generally requires
fact intensive inquiries unique to each plaintiff(such as
questions related to causation, injury, affirmative defenses, and
damages).  In the instant case, almost every element of the
asserted claims would have required highly individualized factual
inquiries unique not only to each class member but also to each
class member's prescribing physician.  For example, establishing
causation would require (1) an examination of each class member's
medical history, including pre-existing conditions and use of
other medications; (2) an evaluation of potential alternate causes
for the alleged injury; and (3) an assessment of individualized
issues pertaining to each class member's prescriber, including how
the doctor balances the risks and benefits of the medicine for
that particular patient, the particular doctor's prescribing
practices, the doctor's knowledge about the subject drug, and the
doctor's sources of information with regard to the subject drug.
Establishing elements of the fraud and warranty claims would also
turn on facts unique to each plaintiff, particularly with regard
to questions of materiality and reliance.

On the (c)(4) issue, the court recognized that Seventh Circuit
jurisprudence indicates that Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements of
predominance and manageability are applicable to "issue"
certification under Rule 23(c)(4).  There is disagreement amongst
district courts with regard to whether, under Rule 23(c)(4), the
predominance evaluation is a limited inquiry, focusing only on the
individual issue for which class treatment is sought, or requires
consideration of the cause of action as a whole.  See e.g., In re
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices
Litigation, 2010 WL 1652863, *1-2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 21, 2010); In re
General Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prods., 241 F.R.D. 305, 313-314
(S.D.Ill.2007).  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in particular
has been critical of district courts that fail to consider the
case as a whole when evaluating predominance under Rule 23(c)(4).
See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 n. 21 (5th Cir.
1996).

Here, the court felt no need to choose a side, because In the
instant case, the putative common issues, including matters such
as whether the subject drugs were defective or whether these
defendants failed to give adequate warnings, were enmeshed with
the same individual issues of law and fact as affected
certification of the putative class as a whole.  The allegedly
common issues had subsidiary concepts (such as causation, duty of
care, and reliance) which would present questions that can only be
answered by considering facts that are unique to each putative
class member and her prescribing physician.

In addition, many -- if not all -- of the proposed common issues
could not be certified without triggering the Seventh Amendment
concerns discussed in Rhone-Poulenc Rorer.  See Rhone-Poulenc
Rorer, 51 F.3d at 1303.  A trial court must divide issues between
separate trials in such a way that the same issue is reexamined by
different juries.  Here, multiple juries in follow-up trials would
have to examine such issues as comparative negligence and
proximate cause after a first jury examined the alleged
negligence.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal From Judgment in Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order granting judgment in Boston Scientific
Corporation's favor in a consolidated class action lawsuit is
still pending, according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported
securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period
March 31, 2003, through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Four other plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, each
filed additional purported securities class action suits in the
same court on behalf of the same purported class.

On February 15, 2006, the District Court ordered that the five
class actions be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public
Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ investigation
relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R) Ranger with Sox stent recall,
problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-eluting coronary stent systems
that led to product recalls, and the Company's ability to satisfy
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations concerning
medical device quality.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the District Court
on March 30, 2007.  On April 16, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of only plaintiff's
TAXUS(R) stent recall-related claims and remanded the matter for
further proceedings.  On February 25, 2009, the District Court
certified a class of investors who acquired the Company's
securities during the period November 30, 2003 through July 15,
2004.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a
hearing on the motion was held on April 21, 2010.  On April 27,
2010, the District Court granted defendants' motion and on
April 28, 2010, the District Court entered judgment in defendants'
favor and dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on May 27, 2010.  The oral argument in the First Circuit
Court of Appeals was held February 10, 2011.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., continues to defend itself in the
class action lawsuit filed by its employees alleging violation of
California labor 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 30, 2011.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant team members filed a
lawsuit against the Company in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.  In July 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice.  In October 2008, the California Supreme
Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of
Appeal.  The Company intends to vigorously defend its position.
It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and
franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little Italy,
and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts.


CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Deepwater Horizon Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits related to the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010 remains
pending as to several parties, including Cameron International
Corporation.

A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by Cameron
International and delivered in 2001, and for which the Company was
one of the suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was
deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it experienced
a tragic explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily
injuries and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented
discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

While the Company did not operate the BOP, nor did it have anyone
on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal
injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the
Deepwater Horizon incident have been and will continue to be
asserted against the Company and others.  Additionally, claims for
pollution and for economic damages, including business
interruption and loss of revenue, have been, and may continue to
be asserted against all parties associated with the incident,
including the Company, BP plc and certain of its subsidiaries, the
operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 upon which the Macondo
well was being drilled, Transocean Ltd. and certain of its
affiliates, the rig owner and operator, as well as other equipment
and service companies, including Halliburton.  The Company has
been named as one of multiple defendants in over 350 suits filed
and presently pending in a variety of Federal and State courts, a
number of which have been filed as class actions or multi-
plaintiff actions.  Other defendants, including BP plc, Transocean
and Halliburton have asserted cross-claims against the Company as
the Company has asserted such claims against them.  Most of these
suits pending in Federal courts have been consolidated into a
single proceeding before a single Federal judge under the rules
governing multi-district litigation.  The consolidated case is
styled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the
Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.  There are
also a small number of cases pending in state courts.  The States
of Alabama and Louisiana have brought a claim for destruction of
and/or harm to natural resources against those associated with
this incident, including Cameron, in State of Alabama, ex. rel.
Troy King, Attorney General vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., Cause
No. 2:10cv00691, U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ala., and State of Louisiana
vs. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et. al, MDL No. 2179, as
have a number of other local governmental entities and 3 Mexican
states.  It is possible other such claims may be asserted against
the Company by the United States Government and by other Gulf
and/or East Coast States, whose Attorneys General have notified
the Company to preserve documents in the event of a claim, and
possibly by other parties.

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

Cameron International Corporation -- http://www.c-a-m.com/-- is a
leading provider of flow equipment products, systems and services
to worldwide oil, gas and process industries.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Units Continue to Defend "Leathermon" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against a class action lawsuit over burial services at
Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
-- Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137 -- against the current and past owners of
Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana -- including the Carriage
subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until
February 2001 -- on behalf of all individuals who purchased
cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery.
Plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
Company owned the cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the
Southern District of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before
Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims,
while also seeking to abandon other claims.  The Company, as well
as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants
moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On March 31, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.  In addition, all discovery has been stayed and all
pending motions including Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended complaint and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
were dismissed without prejudice to re-file with leave of Court
upon retention of new counsel.  On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of
disqualification of counsel.  On May 19, 2010, the Defendants
responded to the petition of mandamus.  On July 8, 2010, the
Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus.
Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given
60 days from July 8, 2010, in which to retain new counsel to
prosecute this action on their behalf.  Plaintiffs retained new
counsel and the trial court granted the newly retained Plaintiffs'
counsel 90 days to review the case and advise the Court whether or
not Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint to add
and/or change the allegations as are currently stated therein and
whether or not they would seek leave to amend the proposed class
representatives for class certification.  Plaintiffs moved for
leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations
stated within the complaint.  Defendants filed oppositions to such
amendments and are awaiting the Court's ruling on these motions.
Carriage intends to defend this action vigorously.  Because the
lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is unable to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to it or to
estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at
this time.


CON-WAY INC: Plaintiffs in EWA Suit Have Time to Appeal Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Emery Worldwide
Airlines, Inc., in the District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs and ultimate
terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of EWA's airline
operations and the shutdown of the airline operations in December
2001.  The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of affected employees laid off between August 11
and August 15, 2001.  The WARN Act generally requires employers to
give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of
notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of
employment.  The lawsuit was tried in early January 2009, and on
September 28, 2009, the court issued its decision in favor of EWA.
The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment and the District Court's
decision was affirmed on February 16, 2011.  Plaintiffs' petitions
for rehearing of the appellate court's decision were denied by
orders dated March 4, 2011, and March 9, 2011.  Plaintiffs have 90
days from the dates of those orders to file an appeal with the
U.S. Supreme Court.

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


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a California state
appellate court cleared the way on May 19 for a state class action
lawsuit over billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities to
proceed against Countrywide Financial, a unit of Bank of America
Corp.

The court reversed a 2010 state court decision that dismissed the
mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Countrywide because it
was brought in state, not federal court, but cited claims under
federal law.

The lawsuit, on behalf of all investors who purchased the hundreds
of billions of dollars of Countrywide mortgage-backed securities,
alleged the company published false and misleading registration
statements and prospectuses.

Orville Armstrong wrote in an 11-page opinion the case could
proceed in state court because it did not involve "covered
securities," or those that trade on a national exchange.

The case has a lengthy legal history, having already climbed the
federal system to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled
the case belonged in state court.

Bank of America did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is David H. Luther v Countrywide Financial Corp., Los
Angeles Superior Court No. BC380698 and Court of Appeal of the
State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five No.
B222889.

Noted securities law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (formerly
Barroway Topaz) is co-lead counsel to investors.  The firm expects
the Court of Appeals to send the case back to Los Angeles County
Superior Court to proceed with the litigation.

Goodwin Proctor, Paul Hastings, Orrick, DLA Piper, Bingham
McCutchen and Gibson Dunn are among the major law firms
representing the many defendants, who include former Countrywide
officers and directors, as well as the former lender's various
subsidiaries and the investment firms that sold the toxic subprime
MBS to investors.


CRANE CO: Defends Homeowners' Class Suit Over Loss of Value
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is defending itself against a class action lawsuit filed
by homeowners claiming loss of value on their homes due to their
proximity to the Company's former manufacturing facility 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 quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former
manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if
any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from
groundwater) from the facility were present in those homes.  The
Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes where
contaminants were found.  On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance.  In
addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 142 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been
accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of
the environmental impact, consideration of other factors affecting
value and determination of the claimants actual proximity to the
contamination have not yet advanced to the stage where a
reasonable estimate can be made.


CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Merrimac-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit related to the acquisition of Merrimac Industries, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of
Merrimac Industries, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of RF
Microwave components, subsystem assemblies and micro-multifunction
modules.  Merrimac's 2009 sales were approximately $32 million,
and the aggregate purchase price was approximately $51 million in
cash excluding the repayment of $3 million in assumed debt.
Merrimac was integrated into the Electronics Group within the
Company's Aerospace & Electronics segment.

On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey.  The action, brought by a purported stockholder of
Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and Crane
Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by
Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders
of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the
acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and
unspecified damages.  Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding.  After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion.  All defendants
thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on
various grounds.  After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to
proceed to pretrial discovery.  All defendants have filed their
answers and deny any liability.  The Company believes that it has
valid defenses to the underlying claims raised in the complaint.
The Company has given notice of this lawsuit to Merrimac's and the
Company's insurance carriers and will seek coverage for any
resulting loss.  As of March 31, 2011, no loss amount has been
accrued in connection with this lawsuit because a loss is not
considered probable, nor can an amount be reasonably estimated.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Class Action.org Offers Implant Case Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Although a DePuy Pinnacle recall has not been issued, the hip
implant attorneys working with Class Action.org are still offering
a free case review to patients implanted with the metal-on-metal
DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System.  Reportedly, concerns have
mounted over the Pinnacle hip since the August 2010 DePuy hip
recall of the ASR devices, and the lawyers working with the
Web site would like to hear from patients who have experienced hip
implant failure, metal poisoning or other DePuy Pinnacle problems.
To have your Pinnacle hip implant complaint reviewed at no cost to
you, visit http://www.classaction.org/depuy-pinnacle-acetabular-
cup-system.html and complete the short form on the right.

When used with a metal liner, the DePuy Pinnacle hip may shed
small metallic particles as its metal components wear.  Although
most patients will not react to these particles, others may
develop metallosis, an inflammatory reaction to elevated metallic
levels in the body.  Metal poisoning can damage muscles and other
soft tissues and may lead to DePuy Pinnacle failure, which could
necessitate revision surgery.

If you or a loved one has developed metal poisoning or other DePuy
Pinnacle hip problems, you may have legal recourse.  While a
Pinnacle hip recall has not been issued, recipients of the metal-
on-metal acetabular cup system may still be able to partake in a
DePuy Pinnacle lawsuit.  Visit Class Action.org to find out more
about DePuy Pinnacle problems and to receive a no cost, no
obligation review of your claim.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


DIONEX CORP: Parties Agree to Cease Proceedings in "Weisberg" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a class action lawsuit filed by Dr. Alan Weisberg
against Dionex Corporation agreed to cease proceedings in the
lawsuit, 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 14, 2010, Dr. Alan Weisberg filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders
of Dionex, against Dionex, its directors and Thermo Fisher,
alleging, among other things, that Dionex's directors, aided and
abetted by Dionex and Thermo Fisher, breached their fiduciary
duties owed to Dionex stockholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Dionex by Thermo Fisher and Purchaser.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the acquisition as currently contemplated.  On
April 11, 2011, the parties to the action reached an agreement in
principle to settle.  The proposed settlement, which is subject to
court approval following notice to the class and a hearing,
disposes of all causes of action asserted in the action.  The
plaintiff has agreed, among other things, to cease proceedings in
the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com
                  dknotts@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          1301 Skippack Pike, Suite 7A#133
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: 610-277-6057


DRUG RETAILERS: Balks at Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Case
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing or Legal Newsline, reports that attorneys
for a group of prescription drug retailers say the actions of
plaintiffs' attorneys suing them should not be tolerated and that
their ignorance of federal class action rules is no excuse for
their behavior.

The attorneys wrote on May 13 that plaintiffs' lawyers --
including Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, W.Va. -- are only asking
for their case to be remanded to state court because they received
an adverse decision by the federal court.  The drug stores made
their argument in response to the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum once called the
allegations made in the complaint -- that the drug stores did not
pass savings on generic drugs onto consumers -- "laughable" and
told the plaintiffs they could amend their complaint.  However,
Mr. Rosenbaum remanded the case, though the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit overturned that decision.

The drug stores -- which include CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- noted
that it took more than 100 days from the time the suit was removed
to federal court for the plaintiffs to ask for remand.

"This abuse of the federal forum cannot be tolerated," attorneys
for the stores wrote.  "Indeed, preventing such blatant
gamesmanship is particularly important in this case.  Following
the Eighth Circuit's guidance, this court will be the first to
address the local controversy provision as a non-jurisdictional
basis for remand."

The local controversy provision of the Class Action Fairness Act
"operates as an abstention doctrine, which does not divest the
district court of subject matter jurisdiction," the Eighth Circuit
ruled in March.

"Endorsing plaintiffs' forum-shopping here would surely invite
other class action lawyers to follow suit.  Nor do Plaintiffs have
any meaningful response to the Eighth Circuit's reasons for
remanding this case, as set forth in its opinion," attorneys for
the drug stores wrote.

"Plaintiffs' sole 'excuse' -- that their counsel did not know
about the local controversy provision -- does not even begin to
explain (let alone justify) their tactics.

"The maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is well known.  It
should apply with special vigor to practitioners of the law."

The generic drug-pricing suits filed by Bailey & Glasser have not
attained much success:

   -- In November 2009, Mr. Rosenbaum was annoyed that the
complaint, filed against 13 defendants on behalf of unions that
provide health care for their members, contained specific pricing
information about only two of them -- "There's not a lawsuit here.
There is not a claim.  There is not an allegation.  I've got words
on a page," Mr. Rosenbaum said;

   -- Lawsuits in Michigan were dismissed by a state judge because
the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West
Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger; and

   -- Representing West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw,
Bailey & Glasser is also locked in a fight over whether the
lawsuit should be heard in federal court, with the drug stores
claiming it is a class action.

A separate lawsuit brought on behalf of McGraw's office against
one defendant has been remanded to state court.  Also hired by
McGraw was DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero.  The two firms have
contributed more than $60,000 to McGraw's campaign fund over the
years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican Dan
Greear.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron will rule on Bailey &
Glasser's remand motion.  The firm said in April that their
request was made within a reasonable time frame and that the
Eighth Circuit has ruled that it is never too late for a court to
abstain from exercising jurisdiction.

"Courts will consider abstention at any stage of a litigation
because abstention doctrines serve important interests of
federalism and comity between state and federal courts that do not
elapse over time," it wrote.  "CAFA similarly serves important
federalism and interstate comity interests by extending
jurisdiction of the federal courts to national class actions while
ensuring that class actions that are local in nature (such as this
one) are resolved in state courts."

The firm adds that no discovery has been undertaken and that the
defendants have not been prejudiced by the delay.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Hearing on Class Notice Set for June 1
--------------------------------------------------------
A state court scheduled a hearing to consider content of a class
notice in a class action in California, according to the Company's
May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 14, 2008, the Company closed on the PA Transaction by
acquiring substantially all of the assets and assuming certain
liabilities of Privileged Access for an unsecured note payable of
$2.0 million which was paid off during the year ended December 31,
2009. Prior to the purchase, Privileged Access had a 12-year lease
with the Company for 82 Properties that terminated upon closing.
At closing, cash was deposited into an escrow account for
liabilities that Privileged Access has retained. The balance in
the escrow account as of March 31, 2011, was approximately $0.2
million

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA
Transaction, the Company and other named defendants willfully
failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and
its affiliates who became employees of the Company all of the
wages they earned during their employment with PA, including
accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the Company
improperly "stripped" those employees of their seniority. The suit
asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code;
alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code
and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of
contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The original complaint
sought, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages;
restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's
fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive
damages. The complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought. The
Court granted in part without leave to amend and in part with
leave to amend the Company's motions seeking dismissal of the
plaintiff's original complaint and various amended complaints.
Discovery is proceeding on the remaining claims in the third
amended complaint. On February 15, 2011, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. A hearing on the
content of the class notice has been set for June 1, 2011. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. --
http://wwww.equitylifestyle.com/-- a controlling interest in more
than 300 quality resorts in 28 states and British Columbia with
over 110,000 sites.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Wage Claim Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
class action before a Washington state court, according to the
Company's May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named
plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the
California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a
putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees
of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in
the California class action. The Company moved to dismiss the
complaint. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for
payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act. The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of
action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action of the
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and the seventh
cause of action for unjust enrichment. On May 22, 2009, the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of
action not previously dismissed, which was denied. With leave of
court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material
allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on
September 11, 2009. On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as
a result of an unrelated accident. Plaintiff's counsel may attempt
to substitute a new named plaintiff. The Company will vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. --
http://wwww.equitylifestyle.com/-- a controlling interest in more
than 300 quality resorts in 28 states and British Columbia with
over 110,000 sites.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities class action pending in the
District of Columbia, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  In the consolidated complaint
filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
allege that the Company and certain former officers, as well as
the Company's former outside auditor, made materially false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's
accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements
relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and
discounts, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court
defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and
call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put
options during the period from April 17, 2001, through December
22, 2004.  On October 17, 2008, Federal Housing Finance Agency, as
conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against the class action lawsuit In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In a consolidated complaint filed on June 22, 2009, and currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for
common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System
(for preferred shareholders) allege that the Company, certain of
the Company's former officers, and certain of the Company's
underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs also allege that the Company,
certain of the Company's former officers, and the Company's
outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons
who, between November 8, 2006, and September 5, 2008, inclusive,
purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or
(b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.  Lead plaintiffs seek various
forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive
relief.

On October 13, 2009, the Court entered an order allowing the
Federal Housing Finance Agency to intervene in In re Fannie Mae
2008 Securities Litigation.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims.  As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remain pending against the Company and certain
of the Company's former officers.  On October 14, 2010, the
Company and certain other defendants filed motions for
reconsideration of those portions of the Court's September 30,
2010 order denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on
December 31, 2010.  Defendants' motions for reconsideration were
denied on April 11, 2011.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against the class action lawsuit In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA
Litigation, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009, and
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, including
former members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the
Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors, as
fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by
investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no
longer prudent to continue to do so.  Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP
whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April
17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and other fees and costs and injunctive and other equitable
relief.  On November 2, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss
these claims, which are now fully briefed and remain pending.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Over Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp.'s subsidiary, FirstEnergy Generation Corp.,
continues to defend itself against three lawsuits relating to
Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions, according to the Company's
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FirstEnergy
Generation Corp., which owns and operates non-nuclear generating
facilities, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air
emissions.  Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce
Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe, responsible,
prudent and proper manner" one being a complaint filed on behalf
of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action
complaint seeking certification as a class action with the eight
named plaintiffs as the class representatives.

FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend
itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.

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


FIRST HORIZON: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder, Troy Sims, has filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division (Case No. 2:08-cv-02293-STA-cgc)
against First Horizon National Corporation and various former and
current officers and directors of FHN.  The complaint alleges
causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), related to FHN's Savings Plan,
which is a 401(k) savings plan offered to eligible employees.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by: (1) failure to
prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in First
Horizon stock and certain proprietary mutual funds; (2) failure to
provide accurate information to participants and beneficiaries;
(3) failure to monitor other Plan fiduciaries; and (4) breach of
co-fiduciary obligations.  For these alleged violations,
plaintiffs seek to require defendants to pay Plan participants
unspecified damages resulting from the decline in value of First
Horizon stock between January 2006, and July 14, 2008, and
associated with participants' investment in proprietary mutual
funds offered by the Plan between May 2002 and January 2006.  FHN
believes the defendants have meritorious defenses to this
complaint and intends to advance those defenses 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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


GE CAPITAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Capital Corporation is awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholders' class action
filed in New York Court, 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 ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit 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 quarterly period 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.


GMX RESOURCES: Disputes Claims in Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
NewsOK.com reports that GMX Resources Inc. has been hit with
another lawsuit over its March 2010 adjustment of prior financial
statements, but a company spokesman maintains the claims against
the Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas company are baseless.
At least two class-action lawsuits accuse GMX, CEO Ken L.
Kenworthy, Chief Financial Officer James A. Merrill and a dozen
underwriters of violating securities law by making untrue
statements in offering materials.  "The company does not believe
that the restatement impacted the company's stock price or caused
any damages to shareholders," said Alan Van Horn, GMX's manager of
investor relations.  "The company believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims."


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class suit
against Insight Enterprises, Inc., remains pending, the Company
disclosed in its May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Beginning in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of its securities
during the period April 22, 2004 to February 6, 2009.  The second
amended complaint of the lead plaintiff was dismissed with
prejudice in November 2010, and another purported class member
plaintiff has appealed the order of dismissal with prejudice to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Insight Enterprises, Inc., is leading provider of information
technology hardware, software and services to small, medium and
large businesses and public sector institutions in North America,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.  Currently, its
offerings in North America and the United Kingdom include IT
hardware, software and services.  Its offerings in the remainder
of its EMEA segment and in APAC are almost entirely software and
software-related services.


INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Bancshares Corporation continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit over its collection of overdraft
fees, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida where similar lawsuits
against a number of other banks are currently pending in a multi-
district proceeding known as "In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation."  The lawsuit challenges the manner in which IBC
assesses and collects overdraft fees on ATM and debit transactions
and IBC's policies related to posting order.  The case is in early
stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.
No class has been certified in the case.  At this stage of the
lawsuit, the Company cannot determine the probability of a
material adverse result or reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any.  The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Mortgagors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Goncher, writing for Westlaw Journals, reports that a
San Diego homeowner has accused JPMorgan Chase of defrauding
mortgagors by overcharging for unnecessary forced-place property
insurance policies, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in
California state court.

The complaint filed by George Champion III in the San Diego County
Superior Court accuses the company of breach of contract,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
violation of the California unfair-competition law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200.

Forced-place property policies are controversial because they are
generally an expensive form of insurance that lenders put on
uninsured mortgaged property at the borrower's expense.

This case concerns a deed of trust between Chase and Champion that
required Champion to maintain property insurance on the house he
purchased.  After Mr. Champion's policy had lapsed, he obtained a
new policy and faxed proof to Chase, the suit says.

A month later Chase allegedly purchased a backdated duplicate
policy on his behalf from American Security Insurance Co. at an
excessive rate.

Mr. Champion bought a home in La Jolla, Calif., using loan
proceeds from Chase in January 2008.  Chase secured the loan with
a deed of trust that required Champion to maintain property
insurance.

According to the complaint, the deed of trust gave Chase the right
to "obtain insurance coverage, at lender's option and borrower's
expense."  Further, if Champion failed to maintain coverage
himself, Chase could "do and pay for whatever is reasonable or
appropriate to protect [its] interest in the property and rights"
under the deed of trust," the complaint says.

The suit says Chase owns deeds of trust nationwide with identical
provisions.

After Mr. Champion mistakenly allowed his policy to lapse in
November 2009, Chase sent him a warning letter and requested proof
of insurance, the complaint says.

Within two weeks, he says, he obtained a new policy and faxed
evidence to Chase.

However, the complaint alleges Chase procured a policy in April
2010 backdated to November 2009 from American Security at about
five times fair market cost.

Mr. Champion says the forced policy was "unreasonable and
inappropriate" because Chase purchased it when the company knew
the property was covered and no loss had occurred during the lapse
period.

Champion accuses Chase of earning undisclosed and non-contracted
profits because it received kickbacks disguised as cost
reimbursements.  The complaint alleges Chase engaged in deceptive
business practices that increased its profits while defrauding its
customers.

Mr. Champion filed the lawsuit as a class action, proposing to
represent all Chase mortgagors nationwide who have been charged
for forced placed insurance.

He asserts the class action may be maintained because common
questions predominate such as "whether Chase breached its
contractual obligations and/or committed fraud on its customers by
hiding its profits in charges that bear no reasonable or good-
faith relationship to items for which it is entitled to charge."

Mr. Champion seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, damages
according to proof, punitive damages, attorney fees, interest, and
costs.

Champion v. J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporation Services Inc.,
No. 37-2011-00090505-CU-BT-CTL, complaint filed (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego County Apr. 27, 2011).


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face Auction-Rate Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits related to the sale of auction-rate securities,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in March 2008, several regulatory authorities initiated
investigations of a number of industry participants, including the
Firm, concerning possible state and federal securities law
violations in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities.
The market for many such securities had frozen and a significant
number of auctions for those securities began to fail in February
2008.

The Firm, on behalf of itself and affiliates, agreed to a
settlement in principle with the New York Attorney General's
Office which provided, among other things, that the Firm would
offer to purchase at par certain auction-rate securities purchased
from J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Chase Investment Services Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. by individual investors, charities
and small- to medium-sized businesses.  The Firm also agreed to a
substantively similar settlement in principle with the Office of
Financial Regulation for the State of Florida and the North
American Securities Administrator Association ("NASAA") Task
Force, which agreed to recommend approval of the settlement to all
remaining states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  The
Firm has finalized the settlement agreements with the New York
Attorney General's Office and the Office of Financial Regulation
for the State of Florida. The settlement agreements provide for
the payment of penalties totaling $25 million to all states.  The
Firm is currently in the process of finalizing consent agreements
with NASAA's member states; over 40 of these consent agreements
have been finalized to date.

The Firm faces a number of civil actions relating to the Firm's
sales of auction-rate securities, including a putative securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York that seeks unspecified damages, and
individual arbitrations and lawsuits in various forums brought by
institutional and individual investors that, together, seek
damages totaling more than $200 million relating to the Firm's
sales of auction-rate securities.  One action is brought by an
issuer of auction-rate securities.  The actions generally allege
that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for auction-
rate securities by placing bids at auctions that affected these
securities' clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions
without properly disclosing these activities.  Some actions also
allege that the Firm misrepresented that auction-rate securities
were short-term instruments.  The Firm has filed motions to
dismiss each of the actions pending in federal court, which are
being coordinated before the Southern District.  These motions are
currently pending.

Additionally, the Firm was named in two putative antitrust class
actions in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The actions allege that the Firm, along
with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to
maintain and stabilize the auction-rate securities market and then
to withdraw their support for the auction-rate securities market.
In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions.  An
appeal is pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns-Related Matters Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the securities class action lawsuit against The Bear
Stearns Companies, Inc., continues, according to JPMorgan Chase &
Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On May 30, 2008, a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase
merged with and into The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., and Bear
Stearns became a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period"). During
the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 and 120 million
common shares outstanding, and the price of those securities
declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the
period.  The actions, originally commenced in several federal
courts, allege that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and
financial results and that, as a result of those false statements,
Bear Stearns' common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.  Separately, several individual
shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced or threatened to
commence arbitration proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims
similar to those in the putative class actions. Certain of these
matters have been dismissed or settled.  In addition, Bear Stearns
and certain of its former officers and/or directors have also been
named as defendants in a number of purported class actions
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking to represent the interests of
participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP") during the time period of December 2006 to March 2008.
These actions, brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"), allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to the other participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP by (a) failing to manage prudently the
ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns securities; (b) failing to
communicate fully and accurately about the risks of the ESOP's
investment in Bear Stearns stock; (c) failing to avoid or address
alleged conflicts of interest; and (d) failing to monitor those
who managed and administered the ESOP.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also
been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class
action suit which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs are asserting
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal
securities laws, waste of corporate assets and gross
mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and
indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses
sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of subprime
loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock. Certain
individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their holdings
of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

All of these actions filed in federal courts were ordered
transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants moved to dismiss the purported securities class action,
the shareholders' derivative action and the ERISA action. In
January 2011, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss
the derivative and ERISA actions, and denied the motion as to the
securities action.  Plaintiffs in the derivative action have filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal as well as an
appeal.  Plaintiffs in the ESOP action have filed a motion to
alter the judgment and for leave to amend their amended
consolidated complaint.  Discovery will now commence in the
securities action.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-Related Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting the outcome of an appeal from the
dismissal of an Enron Corp.-related lawsuit, according to JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are
involved in several lawsuits that together seek substantial
damages arising out of the Firm's banking relationships with Enron
Corp. and its subsidiaries.  A number of actions and other
proceedings against the Firm previously were resolved, including a
class action lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary
proceedings brought by Enron's bankruptcy estate.  The remaining
Enron-related actions include individual actions by Enron
investors, an action by an Enron counterparty, and a purported
class action filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who
participated in the Firm's 401(k) plan asserting claims under the
ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase,
its directors and named officers.  That action has been dismissed,
and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Briefing in Interchange Litigation to End in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motions seeking summary judgment in the
Interchange Litigation is expected to be completed in June 2011,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action
complaints in several federal courts.  The complaints allege that
VISA and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks and their
respective bank holding companies, conspired to set the price of
credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective
association rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in
tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that
interchange would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged
conduct.  Based on publicly available estimates, Visa and
MasterCard branded payment cards generated approximately $40
billion of interchange fees industry-wide in 2009.  All cases have
been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  The Court
has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January
2004.  The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the
remainder of the case.  Fact and expert discovery in the case have
closed.  The Court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' class
certification motion.

In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs
filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public
offerings of MasterCard and Visa.  With respect to the MasterCard
IPO, plaintiffs allege that the offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering
was a fraudulent conveyance.  With respect to the Visa IPO,
plaintiffs are challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories
parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading.
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the IPO Complaints.  The
Court has not yet ruled on those motions.

The parties also have filed motions seeking summary judgment as to
various claims in the complaints.  Briefing is expected to be
completed in June 2011.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Madoff-Related Suit Due June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action is pending against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, as is a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to
add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. to an
already-pending purported class action in the same court.  The
allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the
trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC.  Defendants' motions to dismiss and opposition to
the motions for leave to amend are currently due on June 29, 2011,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

The Trustee brought a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Securities LLC, and JPMorgan
Securities Ltd.  The Trustee asserts 28 causes of action against
JPMorgan Chase, 16 of which seek to avoid certain transfers
(direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to
have been preferential or fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy
Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law.  The remaining
causes of action are for, among other things, aiding and abetting
fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion
and unjust enrichment.  The complaint generally alleges that
JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff's long-time bank, facilitated the
maintenance of Madoff's Ponzi scheme and overlooked signs of
wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and fees.  The complaint
purports to seek approximately $6 billion in damages from JPMorgan
Chase, and to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that
JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from
Bernard Madoff's brokerage firm.  JPMorgan Chase has filed a
motion to return the case from the Bankruptcy Court to the
District Court, and intends to seek the dismissal of all or most
of the Trustee's claims once that motion is decided.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in MBS-Related Suits Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in actions against JPMorgan Chase & Co. as a mortgage-
backed securities issuer is ongoing, according to the Company's
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and
Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of cases in their various roles as issuer or underwriter in
mortgage-backed securities offerings.  These cases include
purported class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of
securities, actions by insurance companies that guaranteed
payments of principal and interest for particular tranches and an
action by a trustee.  Although the allegations vary by lawsuit,
these cases generally allege that the offering documents for more
than $100 billion of securities issued by dozens of securitization
trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions,
including statements regarding the underwriting standards pursuant
to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that
various representations or warranties relating to the loans were
breached at the time of origination.
In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  Defendants have moved
to dismiss these actions. One of those motions has been granted in
part to dismiss all claims relating to MBS offerings in which a
named plaintiff was not a purchaser or the claims were barred by
statutes of limitations.  The other two motions remain pending.
In addition, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain former officers
or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as
defendants in three now-consolidated purported class action cases
pending in the Western District of Washington. Defendants' motion
to dismiss was granted in part to dismiss all claims relating to
MBS offerings in which a named plaintiff was not a purchaser.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification, and discovery is
ongoing.

In the actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity rights may
prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct,
such as affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp and Thornburg Mortgage.
With respect to the IndyMac Trusts, JPMorgan Securities, along
with numerous other underwriters and individuals, is named as a
defendant, both in its own capacity and as successor to Bear
Stearns in a purported class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on
behalf of purchasers of securities in various Indy-Mac Trust MBS
offerings.  The Court in that action has dismissed claims as to
certain such securitizations, including all offerings in which no
named plaintiff purchased securities, and allowed claims as to
other offerings to proceed.  Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
of investors in certain offerings is pending, and discovery is
ongoing.  With respect to Thornburg, a Bear Stearns subsidiary is
also a named defendant in a purported class action pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico along
with a number of other financial institutions that served as
depositors and/or underwriters for three Thornburg MBS offerings.
Defendants have moved to dismiss this action.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plea to Dismiss Mortgage Foreclosure Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures.
Additionally, Bank of America has tendered defense of a purported
class action brought against it involving an EMC loan.  One of the
cases has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the
plaintiff.  The Firm has moved to dismiss the remaining cases.
As of January 2011, the Firm had resumed initiation of new
foreclosure proceedings in nearly all states in which it had
previously suspended such proceedings, utilizing revised
procedures in connection with the execution of affidavits and
other documents used by Firm employees in the foreclosure process.
The Firm is also in the process of reviewing pending foreclosure
matters to determine whether remediation of specific documentation
is necessary, and is resuming pending foreclosures as the review,
and if necessary, remediation, of each pending matter is
completed, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in class action lawsuits related to
municipal bond offerings, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions (the
"Municipal Derivatives Actions") have been filed against JPMorgan
Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous other providers and
brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the reportedly $100
billion to $300 billion annual market for financial instruments
related to municipal bond offerings, referred to collectively as
"municipal derivatives."  The Municipal Derivatives Actions have
been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Court denied in part and
granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss the purported class
and individual actions, permitting certain claims to proceed
against the Firm and others under federal and California state
antitrust laws and under the California false claims act.
Subsequently, a number of additional individual actions asserting
substantially similar claims, including claims under New York and
West Virginia state antitrust statutes, were filed against
JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and numerous other defendants.  All
of these cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Discovery is ongoing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself in the Overdraft
Fee/Debit Posting Order Litigation, according to the Company's May
6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts. Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to lowest amount before processing these
transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees.
Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such
transactions in the chronological order they were authorized.
Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the
Firm by plaintiffs, since approximately 2003, as a result of the
re-ordering of debit card transactions.  The claims against the
Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other
national banks in Multi-District Litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
Firm's motion to compel arbitration of certain plaintiffs' claims
was denied by the District Court.  That ruling is currently on
appeal.  Discovery is proceeding in the District Court.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in Securities Lending Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the Securities Lending Litigation remains ongoing,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four
putative class actions asserting ERISA and other claims pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York brought by participants in the Firm's securities lending
business.  A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an
individual participant in the program.  Three of the purported
class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments
of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma
Finance Inc. ("Sigma").  In August 2010, the Court certified a
plaintiff class consisting of all securities lending participants
that held Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including
those that held the notes by virtue of participation in the
investment of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well
as those that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash
collateral through individual accounts. All discovery has been
completed.  JPMorgan Chase has moved for partial summary judgment
as to plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claim, in which it is alleged
that the Firm created an impermissible conflict of interest by
providing repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma
medium-term notes in securities lending accounts.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of
approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.
The Firm has moved to dismiss the amended complaint and is
awaiting a decision.  Discovery is proceeding while the motion is
pending.  The New York state court action, which is not a class
action, concerns the plaintiff's alleged loss of money in both
Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.  The Firm has
answered the complaint.  Discovery is proceeding.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Court Okay of SCRA-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court approval of the settlement
in a class action alleging violations of the Service Members Civil
Relief Act, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Multiple government officials have announced inquiries into the
Firm's procedures related to the Service Members Civil Relief Act
("SCRA") and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
("HERA").  These inquiries have been prompted by the Firm's public
statements about its SCRA and HERA compliance and actions to
remedy certain instances in which the Firm mistakenly charged
active or recently-active military personnel mortgage interest and
fees in excess of that permitted by SCRA and HERA, and in a number
of instances, foreclosed on borrowers protected by SCRA and HERA.
The Firm has implemented a number of procedural enhancements and
controls to strengthen its SCRA and HERA compliance.  In addition,
an individual borrower filed a nationwide class action in United
States District Court for South Carolina against the Firm alleging
violations of the SCRA related to home loans.  The Firm agreed to
pay $27 million plus attorneys' fees, in addition to
reimbursements previously paid by the Firm, to settle the class
action.  The settlement is subject to court approval.


KEYCORP: Appeals in "Taylor" Suit Pending; "Metyk" Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp disclosed that the appeal and the Company's cross-appeal
in the consolidated class action styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al.,
remain pending, 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.

The consolidated putative class action filed by Thomas J. Metyk
remains stayed pending the appeals In re Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al.

In the third quarter of 2008, KeyCorp and certain of its directors
and employees, were named as defendants in two putative class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio styled: Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., and Wildes v.
KeyCorp, et al. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent a
class of all participants in the Company's 401(k) Savings Plan and
allege that the defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary
duties owed to them under ERISA. These cases have been
substantively consolidated with each other and are proceeding
styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al. Plaintiffs' consolidated
complaint continues to name certain employees as defendants but no
longer names any outside directors. Following briefing and
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss for, among other
things, failure to make a demand on the board of directors, the
Court dismissed Taylor on August 12, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal, and the Company filed a Cross-Appeal, both of
which remain pending. Following the Court's dismissal of Taylor,
two putative class action cases with similar allegations and
causes of action were filed on September 21, 2010 in the same
district court; these actions are styled Anthony Lobasso, et al.,
v. KeyCorp, et al., and Thomas J. Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp, et
al.  The Metyk and Lobasso lawsuits were substantively
consolidated with each other and are proceeding styled Thomas J.
Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp, et al.  The Company strongly disagrees
with the allegations asserted against it in these actions, and
intend to vigorously defend against them.

KeyCorp is the parent holding company of KeyBank National
Association.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving
the initial public offering of Keynote Systems, Inc., remain
pending, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2001, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in two securities class-action
lawsuits based on alleged errors and omissions concerning
underwriting terms in the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed on or about
April 19, 2002, and alleged claims against the Company, certain of
its officers, and underwriters of the Company's September 24,
1999, initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
lawsuit alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to
inflate the price of the Company's stock in its initial public
offering and in the aftermarket through a series of misstatements
and omissions associated with the offering.  The lawsuit is one of
several hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of
New York that have been consolidated by the court.

The Company was a party to a global settlement with the plaintiffs
that would have disposed of all claims against it with no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its present or
former officers or directors.  The settlement agreement had been
preliminarily approved by the Court.  However, while the
settlement was awaiting final approval by the District Court, in
December 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
determination that six focus cases could be certified as class
actions. In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court approved a stipulation withdrawing the
proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the focus cases, and a motion for class
certification in the focus cases on September 27, 2007.  On
November 13, 2007, defendants in the focus cases filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, which
the District Court denied on March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants (including the Company), the underwriter defendants,
and the insurance carriers for the defendants, have engaged in
mediation and settlement negotiations.  The parties reached a
settlement agreement, which was submitted to the District Court
for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As part of this
settlement, the Company's insurance carrier has agreed to assume
the Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of the
settlement.  On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. After a September
10, 2009 hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the
settlement on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors have filed
notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the District Court's
October 5, 2009 order approving the settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement, there can be no guarantee that it will not be reversed
on appeal.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these claims.  If the settlement is not implemented and the
litigation continues against the Company, the Company would
continue to defend against this action vigorously.


KRAFT FOODS: Settles Attica Pollution Class Action for $8.1 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Kraft Foods Inc. will pay $8.1
million to settle a class action lawsuit over pollution at a
former factory in Attica, Ind.

The lawsuit, filed in 2009 and representing nearly 130 families,
claimed that pollution from a former Kraft factory contaminated
the groundwater beneath their homes and spread cancer-causing
vapors.  A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis approved the
settlement on May 20.

In addition to the payment to the families, Kraft must clean up
the plant site and groundwater and install mitigation systems in
the affected homes.  The cost of that effort was not disclosed.


LABARGE INC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
LaBarge Inc. continues to defend itself in class action lawsuits
relating to the Company's merger with Ducommun, 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.

The Company is aware of five purported class actions filed
subsequent to the announcement of the merger, against the Company,
its directors and Ducommun filed by purported stockholders of the
Company and relating to the Merger.  The complaints allege, among
other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, and that the
Company and Ducommun aided and abetted the Company's directors in
such alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Each plaintiff
purports to bring his claims on behalf of himself and a class of
Company stockholders.  The actions seek judicial declarations that
the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the directors'
fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and
expenses for the plaintiffs.  Three lawsuits challenging the
proposed transaction have been filed in Missouri state court, all
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.  All seek declaratory,
rescissory and other, unspecified, equitable relief against the
directors and officers on a theory of breach of fiduciary duty to
the stockholders and against the Company and Ducommun on a theory
of "aiding and abetting" the individual defendants.  The last
filed of the Missouri suits also seeks to enjoin the transaction.
No money damages are sought, except for attorneys' fees and costs.

The three Missouri cases are:

   1. John M. Foley, Jr. v. LaBarge, Inc. et al., St. Louis County
      Circuit Court Cause No. 11SL-CC01383, filed April 5, 2011.

   2. John M. Foley, Jr. v. LaBarge, Inc., et al., St. Louis
      County Circuit Court Cause No. 11SL-CC01391, filed April 6,
      2011.

   3. William W. Wheeler v. LaBarge, Inc., et al., St. Louis
      County Circuit Court Cause No. 11SL-CC01392, filed April 6,
      2011.

Two other similar lawsuits have been filed in the Chancery Court
of the State of Delaware by different attorneys than the those who
filed above-described matters. Barry P. Borodkin v. Craig E.
LaBarge, et al., transaction ID 36985939, Case No. 6368- (filed on
April 12, 2011) and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14
v. Craig LaBarge, et al. (filed on April 15, 2011) are putative
class actions that mirror the claims raised in the Missouri cases,
but also seek injunctive relief to prevent the proposed
transaction with Ducommun in addition to accounting and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company believes that the lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

St. Louis-based LaBARGE, Inc. designs, engineers and produces
electronic and electro mechanical systems and devices, and complex
interconnect systems on a contract basis for its customers.


LAWNMOWER MANUFACTURERS: Class Action Settlement Payments Begin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Vaughters, writing for WIVB.com, reports that News 4 received
an e-mail about a class action lawsuit for people that were due
money for being overcharged for lawnmowers.

Patricia from Cheetowaga wrote: "Al Vaughters did a report on a
lawn mower rebate.  I would like a new report on this so we know
what's going on with the rebates.  So far it seems like there are
no rebates.  Could he please find out and let us know what's going
on with them and when we can look for them?"

Al Vaughters talked to Patricia, and here's the good news: the
checks were going out last week.  It was posted on the official
Web site for the class action settlement that they started mailing
the checks on May 16.  But they've been trimmed a bit.

Kenn Mock filed his claim joining the $65 million lawn mower
lawsuit about a year ago.  But after all this time, Mr. Mock was
having his doubts about getting anything.

"If I don't hear anything within six months, I figure it is like
blowing smoke, the old smoke and mirrors," said Mr. Mock.

The makers of most lawn mowers sold in the last 20 years were
targeted in a class action lawsuit, accusing the companies of
overstating their horsepower ratings.  The case was settled last
year and the checks were getting mailed out last week, but they
have been clipped.

Originally, the owners were told they could get up to $35 back if
they had a push mower.  That has been reduced to $10.19.
Claimants who owned riding mowers could get as much as $75.  That
is now $21.84.

Mr. Mock said, "That will actually fill up the tank with gasoline.
I will get a full tank of gas for $10.19!"

The lead attorney in the lawsuit said about one and a half million
owners filed claims, which cut the settlement into smaller pieces.
But the agreement also provides important warranty protections.

Attorney Vincent Esades, Esq. said, "Because this case needed to
be publicized, not for just the money reasons, but because of the
warranty benefit that people would get, which is not to be reduced
by the number of claimants, everybody who sent the information got
that."

Mr. Esades also said the settlement will fundamentally change the
way manufacturers market their lawnmowers.  Town of Tonawanda
grandmother Eleanor Johnson said even if it is just $10, she'll
take it.

"Well, I suppose that has to be the way it is. There is nothing I
can do about it, personally. What they give me, they give me. It
is a bonus," said Ms. Johnson.

It wasn't just attorneys that got a big cut of that $65 million
settlement.  Officials say the cost of postage and printing
millions of pages of documents also cut into the proceeds.

For more information on the settlement, visit

     http://www.lawnmowerclass.com/


MCKESSON CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation continues to defend the In re McKesson
Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litigation in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 5, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2011.

Commencing in May of 2008, a series of complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by various public payers -- governmental entities that paid any
portion of the price of certain prescription drugs -- alleging
that in late 2001 the Company and First DataBank, Inc., a
publisher of pharmaceutical pricing information, conspired to
improperly raise the published AWP for certain prescription drugs,
and that this alleged conduct resulted in higher drug
reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others similarly
situated. These actions were all consolidated under the caption In
re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price
Litigation.

A. The San Francisco Action

On May 20, 2008, an action was filed by the San Francisco Health
Plan on behalf of itself and a purported class of political
subdivisions in the State of California and by the San Francisco
City Attorney on behalf of the "People of the State of California"
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company as the sole defendant, alleging
violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO,") 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), the
California Cartwright Act, California's False Claims Act,
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500
and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, restitution,
interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts, San
Francisco Health Plan, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, (Civil
Action No. 1:08-CV-10843-PBS). On July 3, 2008, an amended
complaint was filed in the San Francisco Action adding a claim for
tortious interference. On January 13, 2009, a second amended
complaint was filed in the San Francisco Action that abandoned all
previously alleged antitrust claims.

B. The Douglas County, Kansas Nationwide Class Action

On August 7, 2008, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Board of
County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself
and a purported national class of state, local and territorial
governmental entities against the Company and FDB alleging
violations of civil RICO and federal antitrust laws and seeking
damages and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified
amounts, Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas
v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-
PBS).

Separate class actions based on essentially the same factual
allegations were subsequently filed against the Company and FDB in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by the City of Panama City, Florida on August 18, 2008, the State
of Oklahoma on October 15, 2008, the County of Anoka, Minnesota on
November 3, 2008, Baltimore, Maryland on November 7, 2008,
Columbia, South Carolina on December 12, 2008 and Goldsboro, North
Carolina on December 15, 2008 in each case on behalf of the filing
entity and a class of state and local governmental entities within
the same state, alleging violations of civil RICO, federal and
state antitrust laws and various state consumer protection and
deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes and seeking damages
and treble damages, civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified
amounts.

On December 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action. The
amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the Florida,
Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina
Actions and abandoned the previously alleged antitrust claims. On
January 9, 2009, the Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South
Carolina and North Carolina Actions were voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. On March 3, 2009, a second amended and
consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Douglas
County, Kansas Action, adding the state of Montana as a plaintiff,
adding Montana state law claims and adding a claim for tortious
interference.

On February 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Douglas County, Kansas
Action filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of defendant
FDB. On April 2, 2009, the Company filed answers to each of the
pending complaints in the San Francisco Action, the Connecticut
Action and the County of Douglas, Kansas Action, denying the core
factual allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
On April 9, 2009, the Company filed a demand for a jury in each of
these actions.

On May 20, 2009, an action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by Oakland County,
Michigan and the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan against the
Company as the sole defendant, alleging violations of RICO, the
Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, the California Cartwright Act and common law fraud and
seeking damages, treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees, all
in unspecified amounts, Oakland County, Michigan et al. v.
McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-10843-PBS). On
August 4, 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to stay the
Michigan Action.

On February 19, 2010, discovery closed in the consolidated public
payer actions. On April 12, 2010, plaintiffs in the Douglas
County, Kansas Action withdrew their motion to certify an opt-in
state Medicaid class. A hearing on the remaining classes in the
Douglas County, Kansas and San Francisco Actions was held on
August 31, 2010.

On August 5, 2010, the court set a trial date of January 24, 2011,
for the claims asserted by the State of Oklahoma on behalf of its
Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas Action, or, in the
alternative, the claims asserted by the State of Montana on behalf
of its Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas Action if
the Oklahoma Medicaid claims were resolved before the final
pretrial conference, which the court scheduled for January 19,
2011. On December 2, 2010, the Company executed a Memorandum of
Understanding documenting an agreement in principle with the
States of Oklahoma and Montana to settle and release those States'
share of their Medicaid claims in the Douglas County, Kansas
Action subject to consent from the federal government not to seek
any portion of the settlement recovery. In light of the Memorandum
of Understanding, on December 7, 2010, the Court vacated the
previously reported trial date of January 24, 2011. On January 11,
2011, the court entered a settlement order of dismissal with
respect to the Medicaid claims of Oklahoma and Montana, subject to
reopening of those actions if the settlement was not consummated
by April 11, 2011. On March 23, 2011, the court granted an
unopposed motion filed by the States of Oklahoma and Montana to
extend the date on which their Medicaid claims would be dismissed.

On March 4, 2011, the court entered an order granting in part, and
denying in part, plaintiffs' motions for class certification in
the Douglas County, Kansas Action and denying plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the San Francisco Action. Specifically,
the court denied the San Francisco Health Plan's motion to certify
a class of governmental entities within the State of California
including the state of California itself. In the Douglas County,
Kansas Action, the court certified a nationwide class comprised of
all non-federal and non-state governmental entities for liability
and equitable relief for the period from August 1, 2001, to
June 2, 2005, and for damages for the period August 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2003.

On March 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
to extend the liability-only class period from June 2, 2005, to
September 26, 2009. On March 30, 2011, the court granted, in part,
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration by extending the liability-
only class period from June 2, 2005, to October 6, 2006.

On March 18, 2011, the Company filed a petition with the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit seeking permission to appeal the
district court's March 4, 2011 class certification order on the
grounds that it improperly certified a damages class based on an
aggregate damages model that improperly included workers'
compensation programs. On March 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
answer in opposition to the Company's petition as well as a cross-
petition for review of the district court's decision to exclude
all state entities from the certified class. The First Circuit has
not yet ruled on the parties' petitions. No trial date is set in
the San Francisco or Douglas County, Kansas Actions.

McKesson Corporation is a Fortune 15 corporation that delivers
medicines, pharmaceutical supplies, information and care
management products and services designed to reduce costs and
improve quality across the healthcare industry.


MEDIVATION INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2010, the first of three purported securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical
and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the Company related to dimebon. The plaintiffs allege among other
things that the Company disseminated false and misleading
statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease, making it impossible for stockholders to gain
a realistic understanding of the drug's progress toward FDA
approval.  The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of
their costs and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between July 17, 2008, and March 2, 2010.  In
September 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the
actions and in April 2011, the court entered an order appointing
Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Plaintiff had until May 9, 2011, to file a consolidated,
amended complaint.

The Company's management believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  However, this
lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may
be significant, and the Company may not prevail.  The Company
believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance
policies, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be
denied or prove to be insufficient.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class suit
against MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. is still pending, according
to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On September 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association asserting
claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former Chief
Executive Officer.  On October 10, 2008, a substantially similar
putative class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald
Jameson against MEMC, Mr. Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's former
Chief Financial Officer and currently MEMC's Executive Vice
President and President-Solar Materials.  These cases purportedly
are brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of MEMC's
common stock between June 13, 2008 and July 23, 2008, inclusive.
Both complaints allege that, during the Class Period, MEMC failed
to disclose certain material facts regarding MEMC's operations and
performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating MEMC's
stock price in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs further allege that Messrs.
Gareeb and Hannah are subject to liability under Section 20(a) of
the Act as control persons of MEMC.  Plaintiffs seek certification
of the putative class, unspecified compensatory damages, interest
and costs, as well as ancillary relief.  On December 12, 2008,
these actions were consolidated, and the Court appointed Mahendra
A. Patel as lead plaintiff.  Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on February 23, 2009.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties by June 24, 2009.  On March 8, 2010, the
Court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint with
prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oral argument for the appeal occurred on April 12, 2011.

                     About MMEC Electronic

MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri court has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss an ERISA
class action filed by Jerry Jones against MEMC Electronic
Materials, Inc.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan between
September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The complaint
asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its directors,
employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full
disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in
MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock should not have been
made available as an investment alternative in the Plan.  The
misstatements alleged in the complaint significantly overlap with
the misstatements alleged in a separate federal securities class
action.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.  The Company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009.  The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.  On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.  The MEMC defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as
of June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently filed notices
of supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  On
October 18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC defendants' motion
for reconsideration; vacated its order denying the MEMC
defendants' motion to dismiss; and stated that it will revisit the
issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties
supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties filed
briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010, and the
parties each subsequently filed additional notices of supplemental

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

                     About MMEC Electronic

MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Wants Insurers to Cover $3.2MM Lawyer Fee Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated continues to assert all of its
rights under its applicable insurance policies in relation to an
attorney fee award in a stockholder class action involving its
subsidiary AMICAS, Inc.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s proposed acquisition by Thoma
Bravo, LLC.  A second similar action was filed in the same court
in February 2010 and consolidated with the first action.  In March
2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and
agreed to be acquired by Merge Healthcare, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed an application for approximately $5,000 of
attorneys' fees for its work on the case, which fee petition
AMICAS opposed.  Merge Healthcare retained litigation counsel to
defend against the fee petition.  On December 23, 2010, the court
awarded plaintiffs approximately $3,200,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs.  AMICAS has filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and
the plaintiffs have cross-appealed.  Merge Healthcare previously
tendered the defense in the matter to its appropriate insurers,
who have provided coverage against the claims asserted against
AMICAS.  After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award
decision, the applicable insurer denied policy coverage for
approximately $2,500,000 of the fee award.  The Company does not
believe that the insurer's denial has merit and have retained
counsel to contest it.  The Company says it will vigorously assert
all of its rights under its applicable insurance policies, which
it believes cover the claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or
the Company in connection with the fee award.  However, the
Company says an adverse outcome could negatively impact its
financial condition.

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


NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., continues to defend itself
against the stockholder class action lawsuits filed in California
and Maryland relating to its merger with Ventas, Inc., according
to the Company's May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 27, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Ventas, Inc., and Needles Acquisition LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Ventas.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, NHP will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with
Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a subsidiary of Ventas.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the
Merger, each outstanding share of common stock, other than shares
held by any wholly owned subsidiary of NHP, by Ventas or by any
subsidiary of Ventas, will be cancelled and converted into the
right to receive 0.7866 shares of common stock of Ventas.

In the weeks following the announcement of the proposed Merger
between the Company and Ventas on February 28, 2011, purported
stockholders filed seven lawsuits against the Company and its
directors. 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 the company. All of these stockholder complaints allege
that the Company's directors breached certain alleged duties to
the Company's stockholders by approving the Merger Agreement, and
certain complaints allege that the Company aided and abetted those
breaches. All of the complaints request an injunction of the
proposed Merger. Certain of the complaints also seek damages.

In the California State Court, the following actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of the Company's 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 the Company and its directors as defendants. Each complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached
certain alleged duties by approving the Merger Agreement because
the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder
value and purportedly provides the directors personal benefits not
shared by the Company's stockholders. The Palma 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 March
22, 2011, the parties to the Palma, Barker, and Davids actions
signed a Stipulation and Proposed Order on Consolidation of
Related Actions providing for consolidation of all three actions.
On April 4, 2011, the defendants in all three actions demurred and
moved to stay the proceedings in favor of parallel litigation
pending in the Maryland State Court.

In the Maryland State Court, the following actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of the Company's 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 Rappaport v. Pasquale, et al. All
four actions name the Company and its directors as defendants. All
four actions allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the Merger
Agreement because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to
maximize stockholder value and purportedly provides certain
directors personal benefits not shared by the Company's
stockholders. The Haughey, Rappaport and Crowley actions allege
that the Company aided and abetted those purported breaches. In
addition to asserting direct claims on behalf of a putative class
of the Company's stockholders, the Haughey and Rappaport actions
purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of the company,
asserting breaches of certain alleged duties by the Company's
directors in connection with their approval of the proposed
Merger. 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. On April 1, 2011, pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court entered an
order: (i) certifying a class of the Company's stockholders; and
(ii) providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint. On April 13, 2011, the Maryland State Court held a
status conference and thereafter entered certain scheduling
orders. On April 22, 2011, the plaintiffs in Maryland filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

                     About Nationwide Health

Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, Nationwide Health
Properties Inc. -- http://www.nhp-reit.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust that invests in senior housing and long-term care
facilities and medical office buildings.  The company has
investments in 547 facilities in 43 states.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Awaits Final Court Approval of MDL Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation is awaiting final court approval of an
agreement to settle a multi-district litigation in Chicago,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Since April 2004, the Company has been included as a defendant in
litigation in federal court in Chicago which consolidated certain
class actions and individual actions brought by borrowers in
various federal and state courts challenging the defendants'
mortgage servicing practices, including charging improper or
unnecessary fees, misapplying borrower payments and similar
allegations (the MDL Proceeding).  The Company believes the
allegations in the MDL Proceeding are without merit and has
defended against them vigorously.  In the interests of obtaining
finality and cost certainty with regard to this complex and
protracted litigated matter, however, defendants, including Ocwen,
have entered into a definitive written agreement with plaintiffs'
counsel with respect to a class settlement.  Ocwen's portion of
the proposed settlement payment would be $5,163,000 plus certain
other non-cash consideration.  The Court has granted preliminary
approval to this class settlement, and notice of the settlement is
being provided to potential class members.  If the Court does not
grant final approval of the settlement, then the Company will
continue to vigorously defend the MDL Proceeding.


OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit challenging the bank's checking account practices,
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 November 2010, Old National was named in a class action
lawsuit, much like many other banks, challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices.  The plaintiff seeks damages
and other relief, including restitution.  Old National believes it
has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff,
and has filed a motion to dismiss that is pending with the Court.
At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Class Action Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself
from a second consolidated amended complaint filed in New Jersey,
according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 23, 2001 and
July 5, 2006.  The lawsuits followed the Company's July 5, 2006
announcement regarding the restatement of certain of its financial
statements and allege that the Company and certain members of its
then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning its financial
condition and results of operations.  The class actions are
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended complaint.  On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a
motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied
the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.
The Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the
Amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated
class action.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification which the Company and the other defendants intend to
oppose.


PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC: Faces Suits Over Homer City's Air Emission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Electric Company is facing two lawsuits in connection
with air emissions in Homer City Power Station, according to the
Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In June 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a
Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.,
alleging that "modifications" at the Homer City Power Station
occurred from 1988 to the present without preconstruction new
source review or NSR permitting in violation of the Clean Air
Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.  In
May 2010, the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Pennsylvania
Electric Company (Penelec), New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation and others that have had an ownership interest in the
Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects
allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV.  On
July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided
Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership
interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was
required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA.

In January 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against Penelec in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
seeking injunctive relief against Penelec based on alleged
"modifications" at the Homer City Power Station between 1991 to
1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the
CAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs.  The complaint was also
filed against the former co-owner, New York State Electric and Gas
Corporation, and various current owners of the Homer City Station,
including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies,
including Edison International.  In January 2011, another
complaint was filed against Penelec and other entities in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking
damages based on the Homer City Station's air emissions as well as
certification as a class action and to enjoin the Homer City
Station from operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and
proper manner."

Penelec believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint, but,
at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.  In
addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New
Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints
regarding the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and
civil penalties.  Mission is seeking indemnification from Penelec,
the co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to
its sale in 1999.  The scope of Penelec's indemnity obligation to
and from Mission is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict
the outcome of this matter.


PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Imagitas Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, Inc., is awaiting a decision from a Florida court on
a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuits filed against its
subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., according to the Company's May 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a
defendant in several purported class actions initially filed in
five different states.  These lawsuits have been coordinated in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, In re:
Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated,
May 28, 2007).  Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas
DriverSource program violated the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA).  Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas
entered into contracts with state governments to mail out
automobile registration renewal materials along with third party
advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any
state resident to any advertiser.  The DriverSource program
assisted the state in performing its governmental function of
delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them.  The
plaintiffs in these actions were seeking statutory damages under
the DPPA.  On December 21, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit Court
affirmed the District Court's summary judgment decision in Rine,
et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, filed August 1, 2006), which ruled in Imagitas' favor and
dismissed that litigation.  That decision is now final, with no
further appeals available.  With respect to the remaining state
cases, Imagitas filed its motion to dismiss these cases on
October 8, 2010.  Plaintiff's opposition brief was filed on
December 6, 2010, and Imagitas filed its reply brief on
December 22, 2010.  Although the plaintiffs are still contending
that the cases filed in Ohio and Missouri can proceed, they have
admitted in their response that the reasoning in the Rine decision
does require that actions based on Minnesota and New York laws be
dismissed.  The Company is awaiting a decision by the District
Court on the motion to dismiss.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of mail
processing equipment and integrated mail solutions.  The company
offers a range of equipment, supplies, software and services for
end-to-end mailstream solutions, which enable its customers to
optimize the flow of physical and electronic mail, documents and
packages across their operations.  Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in
two business groups: Mailstream Solutions and Mailstream Services.
It operates both inside and outside the United States.  The
company conducts its business activities in seven business
segments within the Mailstream Solutions and Mailstream Services
business groups, which includes United States Mailing;
International Mailing; Production Mail; Software; Management
Services; Mail Services, and Marketing Services.  The company's
products and services are marketed through a network of direct
sales offices in the United States and through a number of its
subsidiaries and independent distributors and dealers in many
countries worldwide.


PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss NECA-IBEW Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according
to the Company's  May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On October 28, 2009, the company and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
company during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29,
2007 alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 20, 2010.  On December 3, 2010, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.  The parties have completed briefing on
this motion and the motion is now pending before the court.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of mail
processing equipment and integrated mail solutions.  The company
offers a range of equipment, supplies, software and services for
end-to-end mailstream solutions, which enable its customers to
optimize the flow of physical and electronic mail, documents and
packages across their operations.  Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in
two business groups: Mailstream Solutions and Mailstream Services.
It operates both inside and outside the United States.  The
company conducts its business activities in seven business
segments within the Mailstream Solutions and Mailstream Services
business groups, which includes United States Mailing;
International Mailing; Production Mail; Software; Management
Services; Mail Services, and Marketing Services.  The company's
products and services are marketed through a network of direct
sales offices in the United States and through a number of its
subsidiaries and independent distributors and dealers in many
countries worldwide.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Marion County Class Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed against Portland General Electric
Company in Marion County Circuit Court in Oregon remain pending,
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.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit
Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric
service customers.  The lawsuits seek damages of $260 million,
plus interest, as a result of PGE's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings until the Oregon
Public Utility Commission responded to the 2002 Order.  The Oregon
Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy it can offer to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment PGE collected in prices for the period from
April 1, 1995 through October 1, 2000.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play.  The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings.

In October 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court abated the class
actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court.  In
October 2007, the Class Action Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the abatement.  However, in February 2009, the Circuit Court
denied the motion.

Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matters.
Management believes, however, that these matters will not have a
material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company,
but may have a material adverse impact on the results of
operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com/
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Ensco
plc, according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2011, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Ensco plc and two of its subsidiaries. Pursuant to the merger
agreement and subject to the conditions provided in the agreement,
the Company will merge with one of the subsidiaries and become an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco. The combination will
create the industry's second-largest mobile offshore drilling
fleet. On March 1, 2011, the Company entered into an amendment to
the merger agreement, which revised the certification, exchange
and settlement procedures under the merger agreement.

On February 9, 2011, Cary Abrams, a purported stockholder of
Pride, filed a class action petition in state court in Harris
County, Texas requesting temporary and permanent injunctive relief
enjoining the proposed merger with Ensco and rescission of the
merger if consummated.  On February 10, 2011, Astor BK Realty
Trust, another purported stockholder of Pride, filed a
substantially similar lawsuit in Harris County, Texas.  The
lawsuits allege that all of the Company's current directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to inadequate
consideration for its stockholders and by approving a merger
agreement that includes deal protection devices allegedly designed
to ensure that the Company will not receive a superior offer.  The
lawsuits also allege that the Company and Ensco aided and abetted
the directors in the breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief as well.  On
March 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint amendment to their
petitions alleging that Pride's current directors also breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information
or making materially inadequate disclosures concerning the
proposed merger in the registration statement on Form S-4.  On
April 14, 2011, the Harris County District Court entered an order
consolidating these actions with the previously consolidated
Ferguson and Dixon under the case styled as Ferguson v. Raspino,
et al., Cause No. 2010-23805.

On February 10, 2011, Saratoga Advantage Trust, a purported
stockholder of Pride, filed a class action complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery seeking preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the proposed merger with Ensco.  On
February 17, 2011, Elizabeth Wiggs-Jacques, another purported
stockholder of Pride, filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  On March 1, 2011, Barry Smith,
another purported stockholder of Pride, filed a substantially
similar suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The plaintiffs
allege that all of the Company's current directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement because it
provides inadequate consideration to the Company's stockholders
and contains provisions designed to ensure that the Company will
not receive a competing superior proposal.  The plaintiffs also
allege that Pride and Ensco aided and abetted the directors in
purportedly breaching their fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
plaintiffs seek rescission of the merger should it be consummated,
as well as other unspecified equitable relief.  On March 9, 2011,
Elizabeth Wiggs-Jacques amended her complaint adding allegations
that Pride's current directors failed to disclose material
information concerning the proposed merger in the registration
statement on Form S-4.  Also on March 9, 2011, Elizabeth Wiggs-
Jacques filed a motion for preliminary injunction with a briefing
schedule on the merits to be determined by the Court.  On
March 18, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the three actions, which is captioned In re Pride
International, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
6201-VCS.  On April 11, 2011, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Delaware actions with a briefing schedule on the
merits to be determined by the Court.  A hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction has been scheduled.

On March 8, 2011, Booth Family Trust, a purported stockholder of
Pride, filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) requesting
injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the merger, a
directive to the Company's current directors to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of
the Company's stockholders and rescission of the merger agreement
to the extent it has been implemented.  The lawsuit alleges that
the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making untrue
statements of material fact and omitting to state material facts
necessary to make the statements that were made in the
registration statement on Form S-4 not misleading.  The lawsuit
further alleges that all of the Company's current directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to inadequate
consideration for the Company's stockholders and by approving the
merger agreement without regard to the effect of the transaction
on the stockholders.  The lawsuit also alleges that the Company
and Ensco aided and abetted the directors in the breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and
other relief.  On April 21, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss
this action and, in the alternative, requested a stay of the
plaintiff's state law claims pending the resolution of the
previously filed cases in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the
state courts of Harris County, Texas.

Pride believes that the claims stated in the complaints relating
to the merger are all without merit, and it intends to defend such
actions vigorously.


QWEST COMMS: Still Pursuing Settlements of Fiber-Optic Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc., continues to negotiate
settlements of class action lawsuits involving its fiber-optic
installations, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against the
Company 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 the Company'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 the Company 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.


QWEST COMMS: Retirees' Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by Qwest Communications International, Inc.'s
retirees from the order dismissing their class action lawsuit
remains pending, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the
Company's retirees was brought against it, the Qwest Group Life
Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district
court in Colorado in connection with the Company'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 the Company and other defendants
were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the
levels in place before it decided to reduce them.  Plaintiffs seek
restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and
certain equitable relief.  The district court ruled in the
Company's favor on the central issue of whether the Company
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 the
Company on all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals.


SAUER-DANFOSS: Court Awards Plaintiffs $75,000 in Fees & Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sauer-Danfoss, Inc., was named as a defendant in four putative
stockholder class action complaints challenging the proposal by
Danfoss Acquisition Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss
A/S, to make a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock not presently held, directly
or indirectly, by Danfoss.  When the Proposed Tender Offer was not
consummated, the Lawsuits were dismissed as moot.  On April 29,
2011, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled on the only remaining
issue in the Lawsuits: resolution of the application by certain
plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$750,000.  The Court awarded the plaintiffs $75,000 in fees and
expenses, according to the Company's May 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.


SLM CORPORATION: Continues to Defend "Arthur" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation involves allegations that
the Company contacted consumers on their cellular telephones via
autodialer without their consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.. Each
violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages
($1,500 if a willful violation is shown).  Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, damages for willful violations, attorneys'
fees, costs, and injunctive relief.  The Company has vigorously
denied all claims asserted against it, but agreed to the
settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued
litigation.  On January 21, 2011, and February 7, 2011, the
Company filed submissions with the Court to advise that
approximately 1.76 million individuals had been omitted from the
original notice list for a total of approximately 6.6 million
class members.  In response, Class Counsel asked the Company to
contribute additional unspecified amounts to the previously
negotiated $19.5 million settlement fund.  On February 10, 2011,
the Court granted a Consented Motion to Stay Implementation of
Settlement and Certain Deadlines.  The Court ordered Class Counsel
to file a status report on March 18, 2011.

As of May 6, 2011, the Company is continuing its efforts to
determine the number of class members who were omitted from the
notice list of class members and the additional amounts to be
contributed to the settlement fund.


SONY COMPUTER: Faces 19th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Clawson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02417 (N.D. Calif. May 18, 2011), brings this action on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or owned or used
a Sony PlayStation console and subscribed to the PlayStation
Network as of April 17, 2011, who have suffered loss of PSN
service and breach of security.

PSN's promised "security" was breached on April 17, 2011, and
third parties gained unlimited access to names, addresses, e-mail
addresses, birthdates, usernames, passwords, logins, security
questions, credit card and debit card data and other private
information of the class members.

In response to the security breach, defendant shut down PSN.
However, defendant failed to notify class members of the problem
for over a week.

Mr. Clawson is resident of South Lake Tahoe, California.
Plaintiff was recently advised his personal data, including his
debit card number, that he provided to defendants, had been
accessed by a third parry.

Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its headquarters in Foster City,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
          GROSS LAW
          The Embarcadero
          Pier 9, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 671-4628
          E-mail: sgross@gross-law.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Direct Purchasers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits filed by direct purchasers, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On September 17, 2008, the Company and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  Seven
additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.  All but one of
the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products between
January 1, 2005, and the present.  The other Complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all indirect
purchasers of steel products within the same time period.  In
addition, on December 28, 2010, the Company and the other co-
defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.
Defendants removed the case to federal court and are seeking to
transfer it to, and to consolidate it with, the cases pending in
the Northern District of Illinois, but Plaintiff is seeking to
have the case remanded back to the Tennessee state court.  All
Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive
relief.

On January 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed
a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits. On
June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.  The parties
are currently conducting discovery.  Although the Company believes
that the lawsuits are without merit and it is aggressively
defending these actions, it cannot presently predict the outcome
of this litigation or make any judgment with respect to its
potential exposure, if any.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
settlement in a purported class action in California, according to
the Company's May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In September 2010, a lawsuit was filed by a former employee of a
subsidiary of the Company's medical staffing company, alleging
violation of various wage and hour provisions of the California
Labor Code.  The Company denies all of the allegations in the
employee's complaint.  The lawsuit, which was filed as a purported
class action on behalf of the former employee and all those
similarly situated, has been settled. The terms of the settlement
are confidential pending court approval.  The Company believes its
reserves are adequate for this matter.

Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries provide long-term, post-
acute and related specialty healthcare in the United States.  Sun
Healthcare operates 199 healthcare centers in 25 states as of
March 31, 2011.


T-MOBILE: Judge Compels Arbitration in Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for the American Lawyer, reports that in the
wake of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v.
Conception, which allows companies to compel the individual
arbitration of mass consumer claims, defense lawyers have been
rushing to seize on the ruling to force class actions plaintiffs
into arbitration.

Now, district court judges are beginning to grant some of those
motions, although in at least one case, with reservations.
On May 16, San Francisco Federal District Court Judge Wiliam Alsup
compelled arbitration in a proposed consumer class action against
T-Mobile and HTC over allegedly defective smart phones.  Although
Judge Alsup followed the Concepcion decision, he signaled that he
doesn't necessarily agree with it.  He noted that "perhaps
regrettably" the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that
class actions provide the only practical recourse for individuals
with relatively small claims.

T-Mobile is represented by James C. Grant, Esq., the former chief
litigation counsel at AT&T Wireless:

          James C. (Jim) Grant, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: 206-757-8096
          E-mail: jamesgrant@dwt.com

HTC is counseled by:

          Rosemarie Ring, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street
          27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          E-mail: Rose.Ring@mto.com

Lead plaintiffs' counsel is:

          Thomas Corea, Esq.
          The Corea Law Firm
          Renaissance Tower
          The Forty First Floor
          1201 Elm Street
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: 214-953-3900

Ms. Ring declined to comment, and the other lawyers didn't respond
to requests for comment.

In a separate case, San Diego Federal District Judge Dale Fischer
cited Concepcion to push a plaintiff in a putative credit card
class action against Alliance Data Systems Corp. into arbitration.
Alliance counsel, Alan Kaplinsky, Esq. of Ballard Spahr told the
American Lawyer this ruling is the first to hold that claims for
injunctive relief cannot be bifurcated from money damage claims,
and that all claims must be arbitrated individually.  Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Golomb & Honik; and Milstein Adelman
represent the plaintiffs.  A call to Rachel Geman, Esq., of Lieff
Cabraser went unreturned.

Meanwhile, Congress is reacting to the fallout from the Supreme
Court's 5-4 decision, in which the majority held that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempts state laws that block class action
waivers.  A trio of Democrats on May 17 introduced a bill called
the Arbitration Fairness Act that would eliminate forced
arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and civil rights
cases.

"Workers and consumers should never be forced to give up their
rights to get hired for a job, or to get a cell phone," said
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) in a statement.


TEKELEC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Tekelec in a North Carolina
court is in the early stages of litigation, according to the
Company's May 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 6, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The case purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
February 11, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The complaint generally
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among
other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and prospects in emerging markets.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.  As the Company is in the very early stages
of this potential litigation, it is unable to predict the outcome
of this case or estimate a range of potential loss related to this
matter.  Although the Company denies the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defense, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this case.  An adverse
court determination in the purported class action lawsuit against
the Company could result in significant liability and could have a
material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and
financial condition.

Based in Morrisville, N.C., Tekelec develops signaling and
switching telecommunications products and services, network
performance management technology, business intelligence and
value-added applications.


TELLABS INC: Awaits Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of the settlement
in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Illinois, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2011.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint -- Makor Issues &
Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc. -- was filed in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs).
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All
nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the Company's current or former officers and/or
directors.  The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during
the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
Company's financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the
individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal
securities laws by trading the Company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about
the Company pertaining to these matters.  The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.
On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file
an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its
opinion, and remanded the case to the district court.  On
September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  On
October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to
appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision.  On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted. The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.  On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings. On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings.  On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment.  The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit, which
settlement is still subject to final court approval.  If approved,
all settlement amounts will be paid by Tellabs' insurers.


THE CHARLES SCHWAB: Obtains Final OK of YieldPlus Fund Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
April granted final approval of the settlement agreements
resolving the consolidated class action litigation relating to the
Schwab YieldPlus Fund(R), according to The Charles Schwab
Corporation's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

Nine class action lawsuits were filed between March and June 2008
on behalf of investors in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund alleging
violations of California state law and federal securities law in
connection with the fund's investment policy, disclosures and
marketing.  These cases were consolidated in a single action in
June and July 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Specific allegations include changes to
the investment policy of the fund regarding limits on positions in
mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote;
inadequate disclosure of the risks associated with fund
investments in mortgage-backed securities and fund risk
management; inaccurate reporting of the fund's weighted-average
duration; and failure to disclose redemptions of positions in
YieldPlus by other Schwab investment funds.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
Defendants named in the lawsuit include the Company, Schwab,
Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment
advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, the fund itself,
Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares),
Charles R. Schwab, Randall W. Merk (formerly president of the
fund), and current and former trustees and officers of the fund
and/or Schwab.  On August 21, 2009, the court certified two
classes of plaintiffs for purposes of the federal law claims and a
single class of plaintiffs for purposes of the remaining
California state law claim.

On April 23, 2010, and May 14, 2010, the Company entered into
separate settlement agreements with plaintiffs in which the
Company, without admitting liability, agreed to a total of $200
million to resolve plaintiffs' federal law claims and $35 million
to resolve plaintiffs' California state law claim, respectively.
On November 24, 2010, the court preliminarily approved an
amendment to the settlement agreements which resolved a dispute
regarding the scope of the original settlements and provided
certain class members an opportunity to opt out of the settlements
and pursue separate claims.  On January 19, 2011, a single class
member filed a motion to intervene in order to bring a new,
alternative class action under California law on behalf of a
broader class of plaintiffs than was certified by the court in
2009.  On February 11, 2011, the court denied the motion and
confirmed fairness and adequacy of the settlement agreements,
subject to a final fairness determination scheduled for March 10,
2011.

The Company recorded total charges in 2010 of $199 million, net of
insurance proceeds of $39 million under applicable policies, for
settlements to resolve consolidated class action litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
relating to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund(R).  On
April 19, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement
agreements and entered final judgment in the litigation.


THE CHARLES SCHWAB: "Smit" Suit Dismissed; Northstar Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of The Charles Schwab Corporation's motions to dismiss two
class action lawsuits relating to the Total Bond Market Fund has
been granted while the other is still pending, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.
(CSIM), the investment advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual
funds,  as defendants.  Allegations include that the fund
improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
On February 19, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' federal securities law claim, and dismissed
certain state law claims with leave to amend.  On April 27, 2009,
the court issued a stay of proceedings while defendants appealed
the court's February 19, 2009 decision refusing to dismiss
plaintiffs' federal securities law claim.  On August 12, 2010, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants
and dismissed plaintiffs' federal securities law claim.  On
September 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint which named Schwab Investments and current and former
trustees and officers of the trust as the defendants and dropped
the federal securities law claim and certain of the state law
claims.

On September 3, 2010, a second class action lawsuit by a different
law firm was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors in the fund (Smit
lawsuit).  The Smit lawsuit, which names Schwab Investments, CSIM
and Schwab as defendants, alleges violations of state law in
connection with the fund's deviation from the performance of its
benchmark index and concentration in mortgage-backed securities,
and seeks restitution and disgorgement of management or other
fees.

The Northstar and Smit lawsuits were related and assigned to the
same judge on October 6, 2010, and on October 11, 2010, defendants
filed a motion to consolidate the two cases.  On November 10,
2010, defendants filed motions to dismiss in both cases.

In the Smit case, plaintiffs responded to defendants' motion to
dismiss by filing an amended complaint on December 3, 2010.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 5,
2011, which was granted with leave to amend on March 8, 2011.
Plaintiffs in Smit did not file a further amended complaint by the
court-ordered deadline of March 29, 2011, and on April 19, 2011,
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

On March 2, 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss in the Northstar
case was granted with leave to amend certain claims.  On
March 29, 2011, the Northstar plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint; defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint was filed April 25, 2011, and remains pending.


THE CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation is facing various class action
lawsuits in Illinois and Delaware challenging its proposed
acquisition of optionsXpress, according to the Company's May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Between March 21, 2011, and April 6, 2011, ten purported class
action lawsuits were filed by optionsXpress stockholders
challenging Schwab's proposed acquisition of optionsXpress.  Named
defendants include the Company, optionsXpress and members of its
board of directors.  Seven lawsuits were filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois (three of which have now been
consolidated in a single action) and three lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and consolidated.
The complaints generally allege that optionsXpress directors
breached fiduciary duties owed to optionsXpress' stockholders by
allegedly approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and
terms and through an unfair process, and that the Company aided
and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.  The lawsuits seek,
among other relief, an injunction against the merger, rescission
in the event the merger is completed, an accounting for alleged
damages, and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.  On April 27,
2011, defendants filed a dual motion in Illinois and Delaware
court moving to proceed in one jurisdiction and dismiss or stay
litigation in the other jurisdiction.  On April 28, 2011, the
Delaware court granted defendants' motion and stayed the
consolidated Delaware proceeding in favor of the proceedings in
Illinois.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Trustmark
National Bank, has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits
related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The
first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB
and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark
as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of
fees received by each defendant from entities controlled by R.
Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and
(ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one
or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set
forth in pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints
against Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial
Group.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not
quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to
federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, which remain pending, although the plaintiffs
have yet to file any responsive briefing.  Instead, the plaintiffs
have sought to stay the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the
federal criminal trial of R. Allen Stanford in Houston, Texas.
The court has not ruled on the plaintiff's motion to stay at this
time.

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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


U.S. BANCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Fee Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp 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 a
motion by the Company to dismiss these cases.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these matters,
including class certification.  As these cases are in the early
stages and no damages have been specified, no specific loss range
or range of loss can be determined currently.

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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


UNITED BANKSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Practices Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Bankshares, Inc., continues to defend itself in class
action lawsuits filed by customers allegedly harmed by the bank's
overdraft practices, 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 April 2011, United Bankshares, Inc. and United Bank, Inc. were
named as defendants in two putative class actions.  In the first
putative class action, the plaintiffs seek to represent a national
class of United Bank customers allegedly harmed by United Bank's
overdraft practices.  In the second putative class action, the
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of West Virginia residents
allegedly harmed by United Bank's overdraft practices.

These lawsuits are substantially similar to class action lawsuits
being filed against financial institutions nationwide.  At this
stage of the proceedings, it is too early to determine if these
matters would be reasonably expected to have a material adverse
effect on United's financial condition.  Based on a preliminary
review of the complaints, United believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in both proceedings.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Miscalculates Medicare Coverage, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in New York claims UnitedHealth Group miscalculates Medicare
coverage and reimbursements for out-of-network medical services.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., and its subsidiaries are
presently involved in three wage and hour class action cases in
California and Tennessee.  The two cases in state court in
California have recently been settled but are awaiting court
approval. The settlements in those cases will not have a material
impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.  The
pending case in the Western District of Tennessee has been
certified as a class.  At present, the Company is uncertain as to
the extent of potential financial exposure but do not believe a
potential settlement or judgment in that cases will have a
material impact on its consolidated financial position or results
of operations.

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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., has assumed the defense of the
class action lawsuit Garden City Employees' Retirement System v.
PSI, as a result of its acquisition of Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., which was completed in November 2010.

The suit is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The Company is uncertain
at this time as to potential liability and damages but intend to
defend the case 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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


WAL-MART: Sup. Court Justices Debate Class Certification Merits
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a post by Brett E. Younkin, Esq., an Associate and a
member of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment
Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio, the receipt of a federal lawsuit
is generally viewed as a bad day for any employer; seeing that a
plaintiff is seeking class action status on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of current and past employees is enough to turn a bad
day into an unenviable nightmare.  Such was the situation when
Wal-Mart, one of the country's largest employers, was notified
that a female manager, Betty Dukes, was suing the company on
behalf of all female managers alleging a pattern and practice of
discriminatory pay and promotion practices.  Ms. Dukes alleged
that despite the company's non-discrimination policy, the
Arkansas-based employer paid their female managers at lower rates
than their male counterparts on a nationwide scale and women were
promoted less often than men.

Recently, the issue of certifying the class of female employees
became the focal point of what many view to have been one of the
liveliest oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in
years.  During each side's hour-long presentation, it seems that
the Justices spoke almost as much as the attorneys, often-times
overlapping each other's questions and even interrupting a
colleague's question in an attempt to make their own point.
However, the result of the heated debate is far from clear.  Will
Wal-Mart be faced with a multi-million dollar class action for
discriminatory practices or will it be just another single-
litigant against one of the world's largest retail empires?

Class certification is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and generally requires (1) that there to be too
many potential members to identify and join each of them; (2) a
common question of law or fact; (3) a commonality of claims or
defenses; and (4) that the representative parties will adequately
protect the interests of the entire class.  It's generally agreed
that the potential plaintiffs here would meet most of these
requirements.  However, the focus of the discussion before the
Court was whether the proposed class of female managers truly
shared common legal and factual issues.  One key question from
Justice Kennedy has led many to speculate that Ms. Dukes and her
potential class members have a fatal flaw in their argument.

During the plaintiffs' presentation, Justice Kennedy asked the
rather straight-forward question: "What is the unlawful policy
that Wal-Mart has adopted?"  The response was that the store
managers have "unchecked discretion" in the decision-making
process and have used that power to create a culture of
discrimination throughout the corporation.  The problem with this
response is that it contradicts the position that Wal-Mart's
headquarters enforces a consistent, nationwide policy, which is a
key aspect of the plaintiffs' case and may be necessary to
establish corporate-wide liability.

The plaintiffs' attorney tried to argue both sides of an opposing
view -- that there is a top-down corporate culture to discriminate
against females, and that the actual decision-makers in the
individual stores themselves have too much power and discretion.
It was on this point where Justice Scalia accused the plaintiffs'
counsel of trying to "whipsaw" the Court stating that the power
given to store managers is too subjective while there is a
corporate culture to guide those same managers to discriminate
against women.  While the commonality issue appeared to weigh in
Wal-Mart's favor, how the court will decide the case is unclear at
this time.  A decision is expected sometime this summer.

Mr. Younkin may be reached at:

          Brett E. Younkin, Esq.
          MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
          21 East State Street, 17th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215-4228
          Telephone: 614-719-2856
          E-mail: byounkin@mwncmh.com


* Supreme Court Upholding Arbitration Ruling to Hurt Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Fottrell, writing for SmartMoney.com, reports that the
Supreme Court decision upholding companies' right to ban class-
action lawsuits is a blow to customers, some advocates say.

In a country known for its legal dramas, it may soon get tougher
for disgruntled consumers to have their day in court.  The Supreme
Court recently ruled that companies can ban their customers from
bringing class-action lawsuits, a decision that has consumer
advocates and several congressmen up in arms.

In a widely watched case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme
Court upheld the phone company's right to enforce a growing trend
known as "mandatory arbitration," in which companies require
customers to settle any disputes using a private arbitrator,
instead of in the courts.  While it's unclear how many companies
have adopted this kind of policy, a 2009 study by non-profit
consumer advocacy group Public Citizen of 68 companies across
seven industries including cable and Internet providers, financial
services companies and homebuilders concluded 65% of them had
mandatory arbitration clauses in service contracts without any
opt-out clause.

Now, with the High Court's blessing, even more companies may add
such clauses.  "After the Supreme Court ruling, we anticipate that
number will be much, much higher," says Christine Hines, consumer
and civil justice counsel for Public Citizen.  Case in point:
Steve Swasey, vice-president of corporate communications at
Netflix, says, "We don't currently have mandatory arbitration
clauses in our terms of use, but we're looking into it."

Why the rush to adopt? For companies, mandatory arbitration saves
time and money, can avoid negative publicity, and prevents so-
called nuisance lawsuits, consumer advocates say.  The firms argue
there are benefits to consumers too: a faster, cheaper dispute
resolution process.  The American Bankers Association says
arbitration provides a "quick and cost-effective mechanism" for
resolving disputes involving relatively small amounts of money.

But consumer advocates say this is a blow to consumers.
Arbitrators are typically hired by the company, which Michael L.
Foreman, director of the Civil Rights Appelate Clinic at The
Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law calls a
conflict of interest.  Also, the limited right to appeal an
arbitration decision is a "critical" difference between
arbitration and civil litigation, he says.  "The Court is saying
we need to trust that corporations are going to look out for
consumers in these processes," he says.

And, as the Supreme Court ruling made clear, once a consumer has
signed a contract with a mandatory arbitration clause, they can't
join a class-action lawsuit -- which basically indemnifies or
"immunizes" entire companies from such actions, says Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Esq., a partner with the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein.  The ruling found that two California customers could
not join a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Mobility because they
had signed mandatory arbitration contracts.  Many companies,
including most cellphone and credit card companies, write these
clauses into their service agreements.

Companies counter that customers have a choice to take or leave
any contract with a mandatory arbitration clause that's being
offered to them.  But there aren't always alternatives.  A recent
report published by the Pew Charitable Trusts of 250 checking
accounts in the nation's 10 largest banks said that over 80% of
accounts examined contain either binding mandatory arbitration
agreements or fee-sharing provisions that require the
accountholder to pay the bank's losses, costs, and expenses in a
legal dispute regardless of the outcome of the case.

Unless Congress or the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
decides to weigh in on the issue, the Supreme Court has the final
word on the matter, but a trio of Democratic legislators have
taken up the cause.  On May 17, Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-
Ga.) held a press conference to announce the re-introduction of
the Arbitration Fairness Act into the Senate, first introduced by
Rep. Johnson in 2007.  The bill aims to "restore consumers' rights
to seek justice in the courts."

Derek Wallbank, writing for MinnPost.com, reports that the bill
would prevent forced arbitration clauses in civil rights, consumer
and employment cases, thus allowing consumers to always have a
court option in disputes.

"Workers and consumers should never be forced to give up their
rights to get hired for a job, or to get a cell phone,"
Sen. Franken said in a statement announcing the bill.  "I've
introduced the Arbitration Fairness Act to ensure that workers and
consumers have the right to choose arbitration over litigation,
instead of being forced into it by corporations."

Though this legislation was introduced without any Republicans on
board, Mr. Franken staffers said this was not just a piece of
statement legislation (designed to make a point but go nowhere)
and pointed out that he has a history of winning on forced
arbitration bills.

In 2009, Mr. Franken shepherded through an amendment that blocked
funding for defense contractors who include mandatory arbitration
clauses that include sexual assault in their employment
agreements.  Republicans who opposed that bill when it first came
up for a vote were hammered in the court of public opinion, and
the measure eventually was included in the must-pass Defense bill.

However, some observers believe it's doomed to failure.  Drahozal
says, "Given that the Republicans control the House of
Representatives, this bill is unlikely to be enacted."


* DRI Comments on AT&T & Wal-Mart Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar supplied comments for two
recent cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The organization,
which represents 22,000 defense attorneys, filed amicus briefs on
behalf of AT&T in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Wal-Mart v.
Dukes. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of AT&T.  A
determination on Wal-Mart v. Dukes is expected in June.

The lawsuit was brought by a couple, the Concepcions, who in 2006
filed a complaint in federal district court against AT&T alleging
that the company defrauded consumers by charging sales tax (about
$30) on phones advertised as free.  The case was consolidated with
a class action suit.  The Concepcions signed an AT&T contract that
had a clause requiring them to settle disputes through individual
arbitration.  Instead, the Concepcions sued and a federal appeals
court sided with their position that it was unfair under
California law for contracts to ban class action litigation.
However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, ruling that a
federal law, the Federal Arbitration Act, governs in this
situation.

"The Supreme Court ruling in this case is not only a win for AT&T,
it's a win for company employees and consumers around the
country," stated Diane B. Bratvold, Esq. of Briggs and Morgan PA
in Minneapolis, who is the vice chair of DRI's Amicus Committee
and an appellate lawyer with expertise on a wide range of issues,
including constitutional law, employment law and tort liability.
"When companies have to pay out on class action litigations it
costs a considerable amount in legal fees and in the final amount
paid to the litigants, although the litigants themselves rarely
realize any significant amount of financial compensation,"
Ms. Bratvold explained.  In the AT&T case, had the Concepcions
pursued the arbitration path as their contract required and won,
they would have received greater financial compensation.

The same is true of the Wal-Mart case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, in which
the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling next month.  The
case originated as a sexual discrimination case by Wal-Mart
employee Betty Dukes and some other female employees and grew into
a class action case with 1.5 million plaintiffs.  The Supreme
Court will rule on the class action mechanism itself, not the
merits of the respondents' grievances.  In the class action, all
Wal-Mart female employees were included whether or not they wanted
to participate and whether or not they had a grievance with the
company.

DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed an amicus brief in favor
of Wal-Mart.  "Allowing hundreds of thousands (and now over a
million) of individuals to file a singular, overly generalized
claim clearly disregards the requirement of individualized proof,"
stated R. Matthew Cairns, President of DRI.  "While we hope
justice is served for anyone who faces discrimination, this
enormous aggregation of truly disparate claims could not result in
any kind of just and fair ruling."

Class action lawsuits hurt companies, their employees and
consumers as each entity winds up bearing the cost of the suits,
which typically award small compensation to the plaintiffs.
"Companies and corporations that find themselves caught in a class
action suit end up with increased insurance premiums and costs
that they then have to pass on to consumers and their employees so
that they can continue to be able to afford to do business," added
Mark Fahleson, chair of DRI's Employment Law Committee.  "Class
action threatens true judicial process," Mr. Fahleson said.  "It
typically does not remedy the situation and does not effectively
compensate those who have been wronged.  Conversely, it has the
potential to negatively impact the plaintiffs in a class action
suit, the company or corporation being sued and consumers at-
large."

For companies such as Wal-Mart, finding themselves having to pay
all of the 1.5 million plaintiffs, plus attorneys' fees and all of
the associated costs (insurance, etc.) could cause the company to
hold layoffs and raise the prices of consumer goods to cover the
financial loss.

"Rulings in favor of large class action suits may seem like a
victory when, in fact, they are a loss for all of us," stated
Mr. Fahleson.

The Supreme Court ruling on the case Wal-Mart vs. Dukes is
expected in June 2011.

             About DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar

DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar -- http://www.dri.org-- is an
international organization of defense attorneys and corporate
counsel that is recognized as a thought leader and an advocate for
the defense bar at the national and state level, as well as in
Europe.  With 22,000 members, DRI provides members and their
clients with access to world-class education, legal resources and
numerous marketing and networking opportunities that facilitate
career and law firm growth.


                            *********

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  * * *