CAR_Public/110530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 30, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 105

                             Headlines

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Trial Date for "Silverstrand" Suit Pending
APACHE CORP: Court Dismisses Mariner Energy Merger-Related Suits
ARIZONA HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over Temporary Nurses' Pay
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit in Fla.
BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Class Suits

BNY MELLON: Unit Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Class Suits
BNY MELLON: Medical Capital Litigations Remain Pending
BNY MELLON: Defending SEPTA Class Suit in Pennsylvania
BRONCO DRILLING: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Awaits Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement

CELL THERAPEUTICS: Class Certification Motion Due in February 2012
COMMUNITY BANK: Obtains Dismissal of Two Class Action Lawsuits
DAVIS ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
DROPBOX INC: Lied About Safety and Security of Software
ENCORE CAPITAL: Weisberg & Meyers Files Class Action in Texas

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Motion
FBR CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Still Pending
FBR CAPITAL: Named Defendant in Suit vs. United Western Bancorp
FOX RENT A CAR: Faces Class Action Over Toll Fee Scam
HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Related Class Suit in Tennessee

KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Now Facing Consolidated Class Suit in New York
KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Oscar Mayer Advertising
KRAFT FOODS: Judge Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Class Action
LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Decision on Appeal Before 2nd Qtr. Ends

MASSEY ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Defend "Reyes" Class Suit
NEW ORLEANS, LA.: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tax Penalty Suit
OCLARO INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in Calif.
OPTIMAL STRATEGIC: District Court Trims Class Suit

ORECK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Claims on Vacuum
PREMIER ONE: Accused of Violations of Chicago RLTO
QWEST COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
R+L CARRIERS: Sued for Violations of California Wage & Hour Laws
SAFELITE GROUP: Former Technician Files Overtime Class Action

STARBUCKS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Minimum Wage Law
STIHL INC: Recalls 2.3-Mil Yard Power Products Due to Fire Hazard
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suit
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Renew Motion to Dismiss Comdata Suit
VERVE GLOBAL: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements

WALMART STORES: Recalls 255,000 General Electric Food Processors
WARNER MUSIC: Sued Over Sale of Company to Access Industries
WEIS MARKETS: Settles Class Action Over Paper Receipts
WESTWOOD APEX: 9th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Class Suit




                            *********

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Trial Date for "Silverstrand" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amag Pharmaceuticals is awaiting a trial date to be set in the
class action lawsuit filed by Silverstrand Investments, according
to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments v.
AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG,
and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010.
The second amended complaint filed on December 17, 2010 alleges
that the Company and its President and Chief Executive Officer,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, the
Company's Board of Directors, and certain underwriters in the
Company's January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act,
respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in
January 2010. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
pursuant to the Company's common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010. The Court has not set a trial date for this
matter. The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously.


APACHE CORP: Court Dismisses Mariner Energy Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with Apache Corporation's merger with Mariner
Energy, Inc., two shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions
have been filed against Mariner and its board of directors. The
lawsuits are entitled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. Mariner Energy, Inc, et al., (filed April 16, 2010,
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas), and Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, vs. Scott D. Josey, et.al.,
(filed April 21, 2010, in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware). The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
lawsuit also names Apache and its wholly owned subsidiary, ZMZ
Acquisitions LLC (the Merger Sub) as defendants. The complaints
generally allege that (1) Mariner's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Merger and by
administering a sale process that failed to maximize shareholder
value and (2) Mariner, and in the case of the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority complaint, Apache and the
Merger Sub, aided and abetted Mariner's directors in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System complaint also alleges that Mariner's directors and
executives stand to receive substantial financial benefits from
the transaction. Pending court approval, these lawsuits have been
settled in principle and are not expected to have a material
impact on Apache.

According to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011, these lawsuits have been settled and will not have
a material impact on Apache. On March 14, 2011, the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware certified the settlement class
and approved the parties' settlement. An Order and Final Judgment
was entered by that Court on March 15, 2011. The plaintiffs in the
related action in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
filed a notice of nonsuit resulting in the Court's dismissal of
the case with prejudice, thus concluding the matter.


ARIZONA HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over Temporary Nurses' Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Adams, writing for Kingman Daily Miner, reports that three
county hospitals may find themselves digging in their pockets to
pay back temporary and traveling nurses who worked at their
facilities between 1997 and 2007.

The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and more than 80
of its members, including Kingman Regional Medical Center, Western
Arizona Regional Medical Center and Havasu Regional Medical
Center, were named in a 2007 class action lawsuit for allegedly
fixing the pay of nurses hired through temporary per diem or
traveling nurse agencies.  A final settlement plan for the nearly
$22.5 million lawsuit was approved by a judge in March.

Kristin Davis, vice president of communications for AzHHA,
confirmed that a settlement agreement was reached and released the
following statement in an email:

"The settlement includes no finding of any liability or admission
of wrongdoing.  Judge Susan Bolton described the settlement as
'fair, adequate and reasonable in all aspects.'  AzHHA can now
avoid further litigation expense and focus our efforts on services
for our members."

It is unknown how much KRMC will have to pay toward the
settlement.  KRMC CEO Brian Turney said the hospital signed a
confidentiality agreement that prevents the release of the
information.  He did say that KRMC did not use a significant
number of nurses from the program and therefore the impact on the
hospital was not significant.

According to court documents, AzHHA started a temporary and
traveling nurse agency registry program for its members in the
1990s.  Agencies paid a monthly fee to be part of the registry and
AzHHA members, including most of the hospitals in the state,
received quality temporary per diem and traveling nurses.

In 1997, AzHHA instituted a billing rate schedule that agencies
had to follow in order to remain in the registry -- a rate that
was lower than the going pay for such nurses.  It also required
hospitals participating in the program to hire at least 50% of
their temporary help from agencies listed in the registry.

In 2005, PC Healthcare Enterprises, a temporary nursing agency,
sued AzHHA and some of its members, saying that the organization
and its members had violated state and federal antitrust laws and
illegally fixed the pay of temporary and travel nurses at lower
than the going market. That case was settled in a confidential
agreement.

In May 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Arizona
Attorney General's Office filed a similar complaint against AzHHA.
A final judgment against AzHHA was filed in September 2007.  The
judgment ordered AzHHA to stop using the rate schedule and
requiring members to use agencies in the registry.  The judgment
did not require AzHHA or the member hospitals to compensate the
nurses for their lost wages.

So in July 2007, three nurses filed a suit against AzHHA and the
hospitals seeking recovery of their lost wages.  It quickly became
a class action lawsuit involving nearly every hospital in the
state.  The issue was settled in September and the court approved
a formal settlement agreement in March.  Nearly all of the
hospitals in the lawsuit, including the three in Mohave County,
have settled.  According to the settlement agreement, neither the
hospitals nor AzHHA have admitted any wrongdoing and deny
violating any laws.

According to the settlement agreement, AzHHA will create a more
than $22.4 million fund that will pay back wages to temporary per
diem and traveling nurses who worked for an agency that was part
of AzHHA's registry and were placed in an AzHHA member hospital
that used the registry.

The amount of compensation each nurse will get depends on their
position (for example, registered nurse or licensed practical
nurse), if they are a traveling nurse or a per diem nurse, how
many hours they worked and what hospital they worked in.
According to court documents, the time period the nurse worked at
the hospital also matters, since not all of the hospitals listed
in the settlement participated in the registry program for the
full 10 years.  For example, according to court records, KRMC was
part of AzHHA's per diem temporary nurse registry from June 2001
to 2007 and part of its traveling nurse program from October 2002
to 2007.  WARMC was a member of the per diem nurse and traveling
nurse program from 1997 to 1998 and Havasu Regional Medical Center
participated in the per diem program from 1997 to 2007 and in the
traveling nurse program from 1999 to 2007.  Hualapai Mountain
Medical Center did not exist at the time of the program.

Agency nurses who believe they may have worked for a hospital that
participated in AzHHA's registry program have until June 2 to file
a claim for compensation.  To file a claim or to find out more
information, including a list of agencies and hospitals that
participated in the program, visit www.rg2claims.com/azhha or call
(866) 742-4955.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by customers in Arkansas over the collection
of overdraft fees, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit filed by two Arkansas customers of the Bank
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were
charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card
and ATM transactions.  The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas'
consumer protection statute.  The case was transferred to pending
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  No class has been certified and, at
this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.  Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate
resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation,
management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits relating to its securities lending
program, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

BNY Mellon or its affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of lawsuits initiated by participants in BNY Mellon's
securities lending program, which is a part of BNY Mellon's
Investment Services business. The lawsuits were filed on various
dates from December 2008 to 2011, and are currently pending in
courts in Oklahoma, New York, Washington, California and South
Carolina and in commercial court in London. The complaints assert
contractual, statutory, and common law claims, including claims
for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege
losses in connection with the investment of securities lending
collateral, including losses related to investments in Sigma
Finance Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and certain asset-
backed securities, and seek damages as to those losses. Three of
the pending cases seek to proceed as class actions.


BNY MELLON: Unit Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits over matters relating to Bernard L. Madoff
remain pending against a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon
Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Ivy Asset Management LLC, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon that manages
primarily funds-of-hedge-funds, or its affiliates have been named
in a number of civil lawsuits filed beginning Jan. 27, 2009,
relating to certain investment funds that allege losses due to the
Madoff investments. Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the investment
managers of some of those funds. Plaintiffs assert various causes
of action including securities and common-law fraud. Certain of
the cases seek to proceed as class actions and/or to assert
derivative claims on behalf of the funds. Most of the cases have
been consolidated in two actions in federal court in the Southern
District of New York, with certain cases filed in New York state
Supreme Court for New York and Nassau counties.


BNY MELLON: Medical Capital Litigations Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon has been named as a defendant in a
number of putative class actions and non-class actions brought by
numerous plaintiffs in connection with its role as indenture
trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital
Corporation. The actions, filed in late 2009 and currently pending
in federal court in the Central District of California, allege
that The Bank of New York Mellon breached its fiduciary and
contractual obligations to the holders of the underlying
securities, and seek unspecified damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


BNY MELLON: Defending SEPTA Class Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 2009, certain governmental authorities have
requested information or served subpoenas on The Bank of New York
Mellon seeking information relating to foreign exchange
transactions in connection with custody services BNY Mellon
provides to certain clients, including certain governmental
entities and public pension plans. BNY Mellon is cooperating with
these inquiries.

In January 2011, the Virginia Attorney General filed a Notice of
Intervention in a lawsuit filed in Virginia Circuit Court, Fairfax
County by a private party under the Virginia Fraud Against
Taxpayers Act. In February 2011, the Florida Attorney General
filed a Notice of Intervention in a lawsuit filed in Florida
Circuit Court, Leon County by a private party under the Florida
False Claims Act. On March 7, 2011, the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority filed a putative class action lawsuit
against BNY Mellon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Each of the actions alleges that BNY
Mellon improperly charged and reported prices for foreign exchange
transactions executed in connection with custody services provided
by BNY Mellon.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


BRONCO DRILLING: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits related to its merger with Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On April 14, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Nomac
Acquisition, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Chesapeake. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Chesapeake
has agreed to acquire the Company through a two-step transaction,
consisting of a tender offer by the Purchaser for all of the
Company's outstanding common stock at a price of $11.00 per share
without interest thereon and less any applicable withholding or
stock transfer taxes, followed by the merger of the Purchaser with
and into the Company, with the Company surviving as an indirect,
wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake.

Ten putative class action lawsuits relating to the merger
agreement and the transactions contemplated therein have been
commenced against the Company and current members of the Company's
board of directors, including the Company's chief executive
officer. Six putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Two of the Oklahoma
Suits have been voluntarily dismissed. Four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The Delaware Suits were consolidated into a single
action on May 6, 2011. The Class Actions each seek certification
of a class of all holders of the Company's common stock and
variously allege, among other things, that: (1) the Individual
Defendants have breached and continue to breach their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders; (2) the offer and the merger
are unfair to the Company's public stockholders as the proposed
transactions underestimate the value of the Company; (3) the
Individual Defendants are pursuing a course of conduct that does
not maximize the value of the Company; and (4) the Company aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of duties by the Individual
Defendants. On April 29, 2011, the Delaware Suits were amended,
adding allegations that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company
and the Schedule TO filed by Chesapeake did not adequately
describe the process that resulted in the offer and that the
Schedule 14D-9 did not include adequate information concerning the
fairness opinion Johnson Rice & Company L.L.C. provided to the
Company's board of directors. The Class Actions seek, among other
things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the tender offer
and the merger, attorneys' fees and expenses and rescission or
damages in the event the proposed transactions are consummated.
The Company believes the Class Actions are entirely without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously.


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Awaits Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners LP is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit in Texas,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management LLC, BGH GP Holdings,
LLC and each of MainLine Management's directors in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption Broadbased
Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al. In the Petition, the
plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders by,
among other things, acting to facilitate the sale of BGH to
Buckeye in order to facilitate the gradual sale by BGH GP of its
interest in BGH and failing to disclose all material facts in
order that the BGH unitholders could cast an informed vote on the
Merger Agreement. Among other things, the Petition sought an order
certifying a class consisting of all BGH unitholders, a
determination that the action was a proper derivative action,
damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, Merger Sub, Buckeye,
Buckeye GP and each of MainLine Management's directors in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption Henry
James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al. In the Petition, the
plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders by,
among other things, failing to disclose all material facts in
order that the BGH unitholders could cast an informed vote on the
Merger Agreement. The Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye
GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty. Among other things, the Petition sought an order certifying
a plaintiff class consisting of all of BGH unitholders, an order
enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger, damages in an
unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, BGH GP, ArcLight
Capital Partners, Kelso & Company, Buckeye, Buckeye GP and each of
MainLine Management's directors in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas under the caption JR Garrett Trust v. Buckeye GP
Holdings L.P. et al. In the Petition, the plaintiff alleged that
MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary
duties to BGH's public unitholders by, among other things,
accepting insufficient consideration, failing to condition the
Merger on a majority vote of public unitholders of BGH, and
failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH
unitholders could cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement.
The Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye GP, BGH GP,
ArcLight and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty. Among other things, the Petition sought an order certifying
a class consisting of all of BGH's unitholders, an order enjoining
the Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 24, 2010, the District Court of Harris County, Texas
entered an order consolidating the three previously filed putative
class actions (Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.,
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., and JR Garrett
Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., et al.,) under the caption of
Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al. and appointing
interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-liaison counsel. The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended class action
and derivative complaint on September 1, 2010 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint purported to be a putative class and derivative
action alleging that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders in
connection with the Merger by, among other things, accepting
insufficient consideration and failing to disclose all material
facts in order that BGH's unitholders could cast an informed vote
on the Merger Agreement, and that we, Buckeye GP, MainLine
Management, Merger Sub, BGH GP, ArcLight and Kelso aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in connection with a proposed
settlement of the class action and the Complaint. The MOU provides
for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release of
the defendants from all present and future claims asserted in the
litigation in exchange for, among other things, the agreement of
the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the
termination fees payable by BGH upon termination of the Merger
Agreement and to provide BGH's unitholders with supplemental
disclosure to BGH's and the Company's joint proxy
statement/prospectus, dated September 24, 2010. The supplemental
disclosure is set forth in a joint proxy statement/prospectus
supplement, dated October 29, 2010, which was filed with the SEC
on November 1, 2010.

In addition, the MOU provides that, in settlement of the
plaintiffs' claims (including any claim against the defendants by
the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees or expenses related to
the litigation), the defendants (or their insurers) will make a
cash payment of $900,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys'
fees, subject to final court approval of the settlement. On
January 25, 2011, pursuant to the MOU, the parties signed a
Stipulation of Settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement was filed
with the court, and the court preliminarily approved the
settlement on March 21, 2011. The court scheduled a hearing to be
held on May 23, 2011, to consider the final approval of the
settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to several
conditions, including, without limitation, final court approval.
There is no assurance that the court will approve the settlement.

The Company and the other defendants vigorously deny all liability
with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Complaint, and
specifically deny that any modifications to the Merger Agreement
or any supplemental disclosure was required or advisable under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continuing the litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the
claims alleged, the Company and the other defendants agreed to the
proposed settlement.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Class Certification Motion Due in February 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class complaint against Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. have until February 15, 2012, to file their
motion for class certification.

The case is In Re: Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C10-414 MJP, Consolidated with No.
C10-480 MJP, No. C10-559MJP, (W.D. Wash.).

The parties agreed in their Joint Status Report & Discovery Plan,
filed on March 21, 2011, that due to the pendency of the case
Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., No. 09-1403 (U.S.),
Plaintiffs should file their class certification motion no later
than February 15, 2012, until after completion of expert
discovery.

The parties' stipulation has been approved by Judge Marsha J.
Pechman for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  A copy of the Stipulation, dated May 2, 2011, is
available at http://is.gd/YvxvV1from Leagle.com.

Counsel for the CTIC Investor Group and Liaison Counsel for the
Class is Dan Drachler, Esq. -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- at ZWERLING,
SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP, in Seattle.

Counsel for the CTIC Investor Group and Lead Counsel for the Class
is David A.P. Brower, Esq. -- brower@browerpiven.com -- at BROWER
PIVEN, A Professional Corporation, in New York.

Barry M. Kaplan, Esq. -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- at WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, in Seattle, argues for
the Defendants.


COMMUNITY BANK: Obtains Dismissal of Two Class Action Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc., won dismissal of two class action
lawsuits related to its merger with Wilber Corporation, according
to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On March 28, 2011, the Company was granted its motions for summary
judgment dismissing two class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's merger with Wilber.  The first action was commenced on
November 3, 2010, and captioned Robert E. Becker v. The Wilber
Corporation, et al., Index No. 20101266 (Otsego County).  The
second action was commenced November 17, 2010, and captioned
Richard N. Soules v. The Wilber Corporation, et al., Index No.
20101317 (Otsego County). Both complaints named Wilber, Wilber's
directors, and the Company as defendants and alleged that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in connection with the merger of the
Company and Wilber and alleged that the Company aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints sought
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of
the merger, a constructive trust over any benefits improperly
received by defendants, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys'
and experts' fees.

In his decision on March 28, 2011, New York Supreme Court Justice
Kevin Dowd held that the Wilber directors fulfilled their
fiduciary duties and acted appropriately within the scope of the
New York Business Judgment Rule based on evidence presented and
that the plaintiffs had produced no evidence of any improper
conduct by the Wilber directors or the Company.  Accordingly, he
granted the motions to dismiss the complaints.  He denied the
plaintiffs' motions to consolidate, appoint lead class counsel and
amend as moot.


DAVIS ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Collecting Debts Without a License
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Dremo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Davis Acquisitions Corp., Case No. 2011-CH-18522 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 20, 2011), accuses the "collection agency"
of engaging in debt collection without a license, which is
prohibited under the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS
425/1 et seq.

Defendant Davis Acquisitions Corp., which claims to acquire
defaulted debts originally owed to others, became regulated by the
ICAA since January 1, 2008, but did not obtain a license until
April 27, 2009.

On January 2, 2008, while unlicensed, defendant filed a lawsuit
against plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect
an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or household
purposes.  On April 2, 2008, while still unlicensed, defendant
obtained a judgment against the plaintiff, for which payments have
been made.

Plaintiff Nicholas Dremo resides in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DROPBOX INC: Lied About Safety and Security of Software
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kairoff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02508 (N.D. Calif. May 23, 2011),
accuses the

Plaintiff Kairoff relates that defendant, in order to induce
consumers to purchase and utilize Dropbox, has made numerous false
and misleading misrepresentations, including claims that user
files are "always safe," "inaccessible by third parties including
Dropbox employees" and stored utilizing "the best tools and
engineering practices available."

According to Mr. Kairoff, contrary to these representations,
Dropbox does not in fact utilize the most secure methods available
to protect its data from access to third parties, allows employees
to have access to user data, and has failed to take adequate
measures to protect sensitive financial, business and private user
information from unauthorized access.  "Indeed, during the class
period and unbeknownst to users, Dropbox accessed purportedly
encrypted and secure customer data in order to eliminate duplicate
files from being uploaded on its server and in turn save money on
bandwidth and storage costs," the Complaint said.

Defendant Dropbox, Inc., is a popular Internet based file storage,
synchronization, and sharing software program that allows users to
store and access their documents, media and other files on
multiple devices.  Dropbox is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business and corporate headquarters located at
760 Market Street, Suite 1150, San Francisco, Calif.

Plaintiff Joshua Kairoff is an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California.  On September 26, 2010, Mr. Kairoff purchased
an annual "Dropbox premium service - 50 GB + 'Packrat' unlimited
undo history" subscription for a price of $138.  In choosing to
subscribe to Dropbox, Mr. Kairoff says he reviewed and relied on
defendant's representations regarding the safety and security of
its service, including representations that third parties, as well
as defendant's employees, would not have access to user
information; and that Dropbox utilized the industry's top security
measures to protect the confidentiality of user information.

Plaintiff says he would not have subscribed to Dropbox or paid as
much for his Dropbox subscription but for defendant's false and
misleading representations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswplaw.com
                  bpouya@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW &PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com




ENCORE CAPITAL: Weisberg & Meyers Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit (Case #6:11-cv-00071-WSS) has recently been
filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas,
on behalf of numerous consumers who received collection phone
calls from Fulton, Friedman and Gullace, Cynthia Fulton, Encore
Capital Group, Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management
Inc by Attorneys for Consumers Weisberg and Meyers, LLC.
According to the complaint filed, lead plaintiff Joseph Olinick
received multiple phone calls from debt collectors representing
the aforementioned debt collection firms regarding payment for a
debt and during the course of these calls, alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
occurred.

The class action complaint alleges that representatives from
Fulton, Friedman placed multiple telephone calls to Mr. Olinick,
and in each such instance, left voicemail messages in which they
failed to identify the individual, the corporate and/or business
name and that the call was from a debt collector.  Commonly
referred to as the "Mini-Miranda warning", section 1692e(11) of
the FDCPA states that debt collectors must identify themselves as
a debt collector, provide the name of the company or firm they are
collecting for, and must say that information obtained during the
call will be used for the purpose of collecting the debt.  The
claims of Mr. Olinick and of the class originate from the same
conduct, practice, and procedure, on the part of Defendants,
providing just cause for bringing this action for violations of
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act under
which relief and judgment are sought.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was enacted to ensure
debtor's rights stand protected should a debt collector resort to
illegal or unconscionable collection activities.  The debt
collection consortium of Encore Capital Group and its subsidiaries
and vendors including but not limited to Midland Credit Management
and Fulton, Friedman and Gullace, allegedly employed the same
collection practices used to collect from Mr. Olinick on a large
group of Texas consumers, the total number at this time is without
measure.

This class action alleges that Encore, Fulton, Friedman & Gullace,
Midland Funding, and Midland Credit Management acted together to
collect a debt from lead Plaintiff Olinick, and generally act
together to collect consumer debts incurred primarily for
personal, family or household purposes.

According to a recent 10K Encore report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, FDCPA lawsuits are filed against Encore
in the "ordinary course of business" but company management "does
not believe [such] litigation or claims will have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."  So from this report, it seems Encore's
position on FDCPA compliance is ambivalent, at best. Encore
recognizes however that class action lawsuits such as that brought
by Plaintiff Olinick "can be material to the Company."  Thus, the
filing and certification of this particular class action may bring
about a resolution that would be of great benefit to victimized
consumers that choose to become part of the class and may
influence Encore and its subsidiaries in future collection
practices.

                     Background Information

Encore Capital Group, a publicly traded company, purchases deeply
discounted charged-off consumer receivable portfolios from
national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations,
telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios, and manage
their collection through its subsidiary entities.  Encore Capital
Group, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.

                  About Weisberg & Meyers, LLC

Weisberg & Meyers LLC, a nationally recognized consumer law firm,
has attorneys licensed to practice in Arizona, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and
Washington, and works with attorneys throughout the country to
protect the rights of aggrieved consumers.  The firm handles Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) violations, Debt Settlement, Class Actions Lawsuits,
Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law and Consumer Fraud Claims.


EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is awaiting a ruling
on its request to be dismissed from a federal antitrust class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 3, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant, with
seven other European and North American-based global logistics
providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World
Transport, No. 08-CV0042. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint adding a number of new third party defendants
and various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act.
The plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified),
asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing
regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Act. The allegations concerning the Company relate to two of these
surcharges. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief. The Company believes that these allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.  On
August 13, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, which is currently pending
before the Court. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
Company's motion on January 30, 2010, and the motion is currently
pending before the Court.


FBR CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on the
motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs in In Re Thornburg
Mortgage, Inc., Securities Litigation, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. -- now FBR Capital Markets & Co., FBR Capital
Markets Corporation's principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary --
and eight other underwriters as defendants. The lawsuit, styled In
Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation and pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,
was originally filed in August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage,
Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI. The amended complaint now includes claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters
relating to five separate offerings -- May 2007, June 2007,
September 2007 and two offerings in January 2008. The allegations
against FBR & Co. relate only to its role as underwriter or member
of the syndicate that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in
September 2007 and January 2008 -- each of which occurred after
the filing of the original complaint -- with an aggregate offering
price of approximately $818 million. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of
certain costs and expenses. Although FBR & Co. is contractually
entitled to be indemnified by TMI in connection with this lawsuit,
TMI filed for bankruptcy on May 1, 2009 and this likely will
decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that FBR & Co.
receives from TMI. On September 22, 2008, FBR & Co. filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint as to FBR & Co.
The District Court granted that motion on January 27, 2010.
Plaintiffs were granted leave by the District court to file a
motion for leave to amend the complaint and a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the amended
complaint. FBR & Co. opposed those motions; briefing is complete
and the motions were argued on November 3, 2010. The District
Court's decision is still pending.


FBR CAPITAL: Named Defendant in Suit vs. United Western Bancorp
---------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets & Co., FBR Capital Markets Corporation's
principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, has been named a
defendant in the putative class action lawsuit MHC Mutual
Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western Bancorp, Inc., et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, according to FBR Capital's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

The complaint, filed in March 2011 against United Western Bancorp,
Inc., its officers and directors, underwriters and outside
auditors, alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Bank's September 2009 offering. The complaint alleges claims
under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against the lead
underwriter of the offering and FBR & Co. as a member of the
underwriting syndicate. The underwriters have notified the Bank
that they are contractually entitled to be indemnified by the Bank
as to all related expenses and losses incurred by the underwriters
in connection with this action.


FOX RENT A CAR: Faces Class Action Over Toll Fee Scam
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in "an illegal scam,"
customers say, Fox Rent a Car and Violation Management Services
collect as much as 16 times the amount of automatically collected
highway tolls owed for rental cars.

A copy of the Complaint in Rothrock v. Violation Management
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-2-18292-4 (Wash. Super. Ct.,
King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/25/RentaCar.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik J. Heipt, Esq.
          BUDGE & HEIPT, P.L.L.C.
          Second Avenue, Suite 910
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 624-3060
          E-mail: erik@budgeandheipt.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Related Class Suit in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., obtained final approval of its settlement of a
class action filed in Tennessee over alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan, according to
its May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 31, 2008, a purported class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division against Healthways, Inc., and certain of its directors
and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants
in the Company's 401(k) plan.  The central allegation is that
Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the 401(k)
plan.

An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2008, naming as
defendants the Company, the Board of Directors, certain officers,
and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.  The amended complaint alleged that the
defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock
fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent
investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and
results of the MHS pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and
by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to
permit the plan to hold Company stock.  It further alleged that
the Company and its directors should have been more closely
monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries.
The amended complaint sought damages in an undisclosed amount and
other equitable relief.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on October 29, 2008.  On January 28, 2009, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of
the duty to disclose with regard to any non-public information and
information beyond the specific disclosure requirements of ERISA
and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the remainder of
the plaintiff's claims.  A period of discovery ensued.

On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  After the plaintiff failed, without explanation,
to appear for his scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order
on July 10, 2009 warning the plaintiff that his failure to
participate in the lawsuit could result in sanctions, including
but not limited to dismissal.  After the plaintiff's failure to
participate continued, on July 23, 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the action.  On
August 6, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice as to the named plaintiff but otherwise without
prejudice, and the Court entered an Order to that effect on the
same date.

On February 1, 2010, a new named plaintiff filed another putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, alleging ERISA
violations in the administration of the Company's 401(k) plan.
The new complaint is identical to the original complaint,
including the allegations and the requests for relief.
Defendants' answer to this complaint was filed on March 22, 2010.
A scheduling order was entered on April 1, 2010, and discovery
commenced thereafter.  On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification.  On June 23, 2010, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter for $1.3 million,
with such settlement being funded by the Company's fiduciary
liability insurance carrier.  The District Court gave preliminary
approval of the settlement on December 1, 2010, and granted final
approval following a fairness hearing held April 25, 2011.   Due
to the Company's insurance coverage, this settlement is not
expected to result in any charge to the Company.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Now Facing Consolidated Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kohlberg Capital Corporation and certain directors and officers
were named as defendants in three putative class actions pending
in the Southern District of New York brought by stockholders of
the Company and filed in December 2009 and January 2010. The
complaints in these three actions allege violations of Sections 10
and 20 of the Exchange Act based on the Company's disclosures of
its year-end 2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial
statements. On March 21, 2011, the three putative class actions
were consolidated.  A consolidated complaint has not yet been
filed.  The Company believes that the suit is without merit and
will defend it vigorously, according to its May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Oscar Mayer Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Kraft Foods misleadingly advertises that only 2% of the calories
in its Oscar Mayer Deli Fresh meat products come from fat, but 20%
of the calories actually come from fat.

A copy of the Complaint in McDougall v. Kraft Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-61202 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/25/Fat.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Gerson, Esq.
          THE GERSON LAW FIRM
          8551 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: (954) 915-8888
          E-mail: sgerson@gersonlawfirm.com


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis struck seven
affirmative defenses filed by Kraft Foods Global Inc. in a
proposed class action over wages paid to its workers at a Granite
City plant.

Judge Callis entered her order striking the defenses in the case
brought by lead plaintiff Joan Jones May 13.

Ms. Jones is suing Kraft on behalf of a proposed class of up to
500 workers at Kraft's Granite City plant on claims that the
company violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay
wages she and other class members were allegedly owed.

Kraft denies the allegations.

Ms. Jones moved in April to strike the affirmative defenses.

Judge Callis found for the plaintiff on seven of the 15
affirmative defenses Kraft filed.

Judge Callis struck the following defenses from Kraft's answer:

   -- Failure to state a claim

   -- Inadequacy of representation

   -- Lack of commonality required for a class action

   -- Lack of typicality required for a class action

   -- Inferior type of adjudication

   -- Unmanageable for purposes of class action.

While Judge Callis' order states that Kraft's affirmative defense
16 was struck, Kraft's affirmative defenses end at defense 15, de
minimis or the defense that the matter is so trifling that the
court should not consider it.  The company's defenses include a
paragraph at the end of the filing indicating that Kraft reserves
the right to assert other defenses.

It is unclear from the May 13 order whether Judge Callis struck
defense 15 or the additional defenses reservation.

Judge Callis allowed Kraft to preserve certain issues for
arguments relevant to the stated claim issue and class
certification issue.

Judge Callis denied the rest of the plaintiff's move to strike.

Joseph Phebus, Esq. represents Jones and the potential class.

Jonathan Garlough, Esq. represents Kraft.

The case is Madison case number 11-L-082.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 23 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action on behalf investors who purchased
the common stock of Longtop Financial, Inc.  The lawsuit charges
violations against Longtop Financial and its officers and
directors for issuing materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public between June 29, 2009 and April
25, 2011, inclusive.

To join the Longtop class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case filed by the Rosen Law
Firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Longtop and its officers and directors for misrepresenting
the true financial condition of the Company and failing to
disclose material related party transactions during the Class
Period. Beginning on April 26, 2011 a series of reports issued by
Citron Research and others exposed potential accounting fraud and
nondisclosure of related party transactions at Longtop.

On May 17, 2011 a trading halt was instituted on Longtop's common
stock. On May 23, 2011 Longtop issued a press release announcing,
among other things, (1) the resignation of its auditor, Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd; (2) the resignation of Longtop's Chief
Financial Officers; (3) the initiation of an SEC inquiry; (4) and
the initiation of an independent investigation. According to the
announcement, DTT was resigning because of '(1) the recently
identified falsity of the Company's financial records in relation
to cash at bank and loan balances (and possibly in sales revenue);
(2) the deliberate interference by certain members of Longtop
management in DTT's audit process; and (3) the unlawful detention
of DTT's audit files."

DTT also stated that it "was no longer able to rely on
management's representations in relation to prior period financial
reports, that continued reliance should not longer be placed on
DTT's audit reports on the previous financial statements, and DTT
declined to be associated with any of the Company's financial
communications in 2010 and 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 22, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

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


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Decision on Appeal Before 2nd Qtr. Ends
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries, Inc., expects a ruling on its appeal relating
to a class action lawsuit in Texas before the end of the second
quarter, according to its May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of
Lufkin who alleged race discrimination in employment.
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999,
the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which included all black employees employed by Lufkin
from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively
closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully
attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003,
and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned
and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although
plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide variety of
employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact
claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that Lufkin discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that Lufkin
pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together
with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29,
2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for
the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including
interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney
fees that Lufkin estimates will result in a total not to exceed
$2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District
Court (i) enjoined and ordered Lufkin to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii)
ordered Lufkin to pay court costs and expenses.

Lufkin reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, Lufkin appeared
before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in
this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on
February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim
regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the
Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for
class certification of a class disparate treatment claim.
Plaintiff's claim on the issue of Lufkin's promotional practices
was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for
re-computation in accordance with the opinion.  The District
Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to
enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the
issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District
Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing
authority.

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues
of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, Lufkin reviewed the plaintiff's submissions which
described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported
their positions on attorney fees and damages. After careful review
of the plaintiff's submission to the District Court Lufkin
continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues
that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a result of
these different results, the court requested further evidence from
the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final
decision.  The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding
legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a
reduced level from the plaintiffs original request. Lufkin and the
plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the
damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested
amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.  Due to the resolution
of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009
and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of
attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, Lufkin recorded an
additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009
above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award
of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28,
2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case
had not been issued.  The court commented that this issue can be
reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas notified Lufkin that it had entered a final
judgment related to Lufkin's ongoing class-action lawsuit.  On
January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final
judgment.  On January 21, 2010, Lufkin filed a notice of cross-
appeal with the same court.

On January 15, 2010, in its final judgment, the Court ordered
Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages,
$2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any
post-judgment interest. Lufkin had previously estimated the total
liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2
million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request
for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date
of the final judgment. The plaintiffs were required to submit this
request within 14 days of the final judgment. On January 21, 2010,
Lufkin filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment
of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment
pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both
parties' appeals.  The District Court granted this motion to stay.

On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as
allowed in the final judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2009,
Lufkin recorded a provision of $1.0 million for these legal
expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of
damages.  On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney's fees, costs and
expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of
January 1, 2009 through January 15, 2010.  In order to cover
these cost, Lufkin recorded an additional provision of $1.0
million in September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end
of 2010.

On February 2, 2011, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals accepted the oral arguments from the plaintiffs and Lufkin
on their respective appeals to the court.  The Company anticipates
the court's decision before the end of the second quarter of 2011.


MASSEY ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Johnson & Weaver, LLP, The Briscoe Law Firm,
PLLC, and Powers Taylor, LLP on May 23 disclosed that they have
filed a class action in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Massey Energy
Company securities, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Massey, certain of its directors, and Alpha
Natural Resources, Inc. with violations of the Act.  On January
29, 2011 Massey and Alpha jointly announced a Proposed Merger in
which Massey would be acquired by Alpha for 1.025 shares of Alpha
common stock and $10.00 in cash for each share of Massey common
stock.  The complaint alleges that defendants filed materially
false and misleading proxy statements on March 17, 2011, April 12,
2011, and April 21, 2011, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that were intended to induce action by Massey's
shareholders regarding the Proposed Merger that will substantially
harm the Class.  The complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties by certain of Massey's directors.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Massey securities.  The plaintiff is represented by Johnson &
Weaver, The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and Powers Taylor, LLP, which
have expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60
days from May 23.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Frank J. Johnson at (619) 230-
0063, or via email at rankj@johnsonandweaver.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Based in San Diego -- Johnson & Weaver --
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is active in major litigations
pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States
and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf
of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies.


NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Defend "Reyes" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc., says that a class is yet to be
certified in a class action lawsuit filed by Reynaldo Reyes,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1961, et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf
of himself and a purported nationwide class. National Penn plans
on vigorously defending this lawsuit. Each of the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint. In late March
2011, the Court dismissed all defendants' motions without
prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to file a "RICO Statement" and
set forth in detail the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff's RICO Statement was filed in April 2011.  National Penn
expects that it will renew its motion to dismiss in May 2011 and
that a decision will be issued in the second or third quarter of
2011.  If National Penn's renewed motion to dismiss is denied, the
parties will take discovery and the Court will establish a
schedule for a class certification motion and related briefing. To
date, a class has not been certified.


NEW ORLEANS, LA.: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tax Penalty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court decision dismissing a class action initiated by
Denise Washington against the city of New Orleans, et al., over an
imposed penalty on delinquent tax collections.

Ms. Washington's class suit was filed in December 2009 against
the City and Reginald Zeno, the director of finance for the
Parish of Orleans, asserting that a 30% collection penalty on
delinquent ad valorem taxes violated various provisions of the
U.S. Constitution.  The district court dismissed the 2009 lawsuit
for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act.  Ms.
Washington appealed the dismissal order in In re Denise
Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Orleans City; Reginald Zeno, Director of Finance,
Parish of Orleans, Case No. 10-30727 (5th Cir.)

Ms. Washington filed a similar class action suit against the City
and two private collector parties in 2002, captioned Washington v.
Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson, LLP, et. al.  That suit
was also dismissed by a federal court, which order was upheld by
the 5th Circuit in 2003.

Accordingly, for the second time, the 5th Circuit holds that there
is no federal jurisdiction over the 2009 action by Ms. Washington.
The Appellate Court agrees with the district court that the Tax
Injunction Act provides that district courts are not entitled to
enjoin the collection of any tax under State law, where a speedy
and efficient remedy may be had in the court of such State.

The 5th Circuit holds that the Louisiana Supreme Court's
invalidation of the 30% collection penalty in Fransen v. City of
New Orleans, 988 So.2d 255, 241-42(2008), does not affect its
finding that the penalty was "inexorably tied" to tax collection.

The 5th Circuit also denied a motion by Ms. Washington's counsel
for a writ of prohibition preventing the state trial court in the
Fransen action from enforcing a contempt order against him.  The
5th Circuit finds that Ms. Washington's lawyer identified no
authority permitting a party to flout a state court protective
order simply because documents in a state action might prove
useful in a separate federal action.

A copy of the 5th Circuit's May 2, 2011, decision, concurred by
Circuit Judges Alexander Campbell King, Fortunato Benavides, and
Jennifer Walker Elrod, is available at http://is.gd/q9eVrHfrom
Leagle.com.


OCLARO INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on May 23 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Oclaro,
Inc. common stock who purchased shares between May 6, 2010 and
October 27, 2010, inclusive.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges
that, among other things, the Company knew but failed to disclose
that demand for its products was flat or declining well before it
publically acknowledged the slowdown.  According to the complaint,
this slowing demand for Oclaro's products rendered its forecast of
accelerating gross margin growth false and misleading.

If you purchased Oclaro common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than July 18, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are an Oclaro investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests
with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

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


OPTIMAL STRATEGIC: District Court Trims Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss the class action suit captioned In re Optimal
U.S. Litigation, Case No. 10-Civ-4095 (S.D.N.Y.).

The putative class action arose of plaintiffs' investment in the
Optimal Strategy U.S. Equity fund, which in turn invested 100% of
its assets with Bernard L. Madoff and his firm, Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC (BMIS).

Plaintiffs comprise of (i) 56 non-U.S. persons and entities who
invested in Optimal U.S. based on advice provided by Israel-based
investment advisory firm Pioneer International Ltd. -- the
"Pioneer Plaintiffs" -- and (ii) three foreign citizens Solange
Broccoli, Gaston Broccoli, and Hugo Valentin Galinanes, with whom
Santander U.S. marketed and sold Optimal U.S. shares to -- the
"Santander Plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants --
Optimal Investment Management Services, S.A., Optimal U.S.'s
investment advisor; Jonathan Clark, an employee; and two closely-
affiliated Banco Santander entities -- failed to conduct
adequate diligence regarding Madoff, ignored "red flags" that
should have alerted them to Madoff's fraud, and made misstatements
and omissions in connection with the sale of Optimal U.S. shares,
causing Plaintiffs to lose their investments and allowing
Defendants wrongfully to collect management fees.  Defendants
sought to dismiss all 15 counts asserted in the 2nd amended
complaint, including 13 state law and two federal securities law
claims.

As to the Defendants' first argument in relation to the Bahamian
forum selection clauses contained in the Pioneer/Optimal and
Santander/Optimal agreements, Judge Scheindlin finds that:

   -- the forum selection clause is inapplicable to Pioneer's
      claims as those claims do not arise from the Pioneer/Optimal
      private placing agreements; but

   -- the action relates to the Santander Plaintiffs' investment
      accounts and is therefore governed by the Bahamian forum
      selection clause.

Thus, Counts I-XII are dismissed to the extent they are brought by
the Santander Plaintiffs, who must litigate those claims in the
Bahamas, Judge Scheindlin rules.

The Defendants' second argument is that the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 does not apply to the "extraterritorial" transactions
forming the basis for Plaintiffs' federal securities claims.

"At this stage, Plaintiffs' allegation that the purchases took
place in the United States, factually supported by 'Contract
Notes,' suffices to establish the applicability of the Exchange
Act to the transactions in question," Judge Scheindlin opines.

The Defendants' third argument is that Plaintiffs' common law
claims fail either for lack of standing or for failure to state a
claim.  The Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to direct
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment (Counts V-VII and IX-X).  "Upon a close assessment of
all five claims, I conclude that each is 'a classic claim of fund
mismanagement that belongs to the Fund, and is therefore
derivative,'" Judge Scheindlin says.  The Court dismissed the
common law claims as derivative claims.

The Court finds that common law fraud claims (Counts I-II) may
proceed against OIS and Mr. Clark, but says there is a dearth of
briefing on the adequacy of the same claims as to Banco Satander.
Judge Scheindlin thus defers ruling on the issue of the primary
fraud claims (Counts I-II).

A copy of the Judge Scheindlin's May 2, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/QjVrRUfrom Leagle.com.


ORECK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Claims on Vacuum
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Keogh Law Firm on May 23 disclose that a class action suit has
been filed against Oreck that alleges that the Oreck Halo vacuum
does not have the "germ killing" abilities as was advertised on TV
and in infomercials.  The lawsuit alleges that Oreck aggressively
advertised and marketed the Halo vacuum's as a "Flu Fighter" with
the ability to "kill and reduce virtually all bacteria, viruses,
germs, mold, and allergens that exist on carpets and floor
surfaces" including the flu and common cold.  In truth, according
to the lawsuit, such claims were not substantiated.  The lawsuit
alleges Oreck charged consumers a substantial premium for the
"germ killing" Halo vacuum, and seeks remedies under state
consumer protection laws related to false advertising, including
refunds for Halo purchasers.

After Oreck refused to cooperate in an investigation by the
National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business
Bureaus, the National Advertising Division referred the matter to
the FTC.  As part of its continuing effort to protect consumers
from bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission charged
Oreck with making false and deceptive health claims regarding its
Oreck Halo vacuum and ProShield Plus air cleaner products.  The
FTC action was resolved last month with Oreck agreeing to pay the
FTC $750,000.  After the FTC' referral, Oreck stopped selling the
Halo vacuum on its website, but it has not recalled the vacuums
from franchise stores or other retailers.  Oreck continues to sell
its ProShield Plus air purifier, which Oreck also claimed to have
the ability to kill germs, viruses and bacteria.  Oreck further
has agreed to cease making misrepresentations and numerous
unsubstantiated claims about its Proshield Plus air purifier, the
Oreck Halo vacuum and all its other air cleaning and vacuum
cleaner products.

The class action lawsuit was brought by a consortium of law firms
from Texas, Illinois, and Montana.  If you purchased an Oreck Halo
vacuum or an Oreck ProShild Plus air purifier as a result of
Oreck's  advertising, you may go online at
http://www.oreckclassaction.comto register to be included in the
class action.  You may also contact the Keogh Law Firm to join the
class action case or to learn your important rights at (312) 265-
3258 or online at http://www.keoghlaw.com/Contact.shtml


PREMIER ONE: Accused of Violations of Chicago RLTO
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Bryan, individually and on behalf of other tenants and
former tenants similarly situated v. Tommy Isirov, individually
and as successor to Peter Isirov, and Premier One Management, LLC,
Case No. 2011-CH-18515 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 20, 2011),
alleges five counts for violation of the Chicago Residential and
Tenant Ordinance: (i) failing to provide plaintiff and members of
the proposed class proper receipts for their security deposits,
(ii) commingling the security deposit funds of plaintiff and
members of the proposed class with their own assets and/or failing
to place said funds in a federally insured interest account, (iii)
failing to return and/or account for the security deposits of
plaintiff and of members of the proposed class, and
(iv) failing to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed
class of summary of the RLTO with the parties' lease.

At all relevant times, Philip Bryan was a "tenant" as defined
under the Chicago Municipal Code Section 5-12-030 of the RLTO.

At all relevant times, Peter Isirov or Tommy Isirov was the record
owner of Apartment 505 at 1111 W. Hollywood, Chicago, Illinois --
Premises -- and was the "owner" and "landlord" of the Premises as
defined under RLTO Section 5-12-030.

The Premises are managed by defendant Premier One Management, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          WOERTHWEIN & MILLER
          225 W. Washington, 22nd Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 654-0001
          E-mail: wam@wamlaw.com


QWEST COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel in McDaniel v. Qwest Communications Corp., No.
05-cv-01008 on May 23 disclosed that preliminary approval of a
Proposed Settlement was granted by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit involves
fiber-optic cable and related telecommunications equipment, that
has been installed in railroad Rights of Way.  Persons who own or
owned land next to or under railroad Rights of Way in Illinois may
be eligible to receive benefits.

Sprint, Qwest, Level 3, and WilTel Communications, the Defendants,
are telecommunications companies.  Beginning in the mid-1980s, the
companies or their predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and
installed related telecommunications equipment within railroad
Rights of Way in Illinois.  A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.
The Defendants entered into agreements with the railroads that own
and occupy the Rights of Way, and under those agreements paid the
railroads for the rights to install the fiber optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way.

Plaintiffs allege that, before installing the fiber optic cable
and related telecommunications equipment, the Defendants also were
required to obtain consent from those landowners who owned the
land under the Rights of Way.  The Defendants contend that the
railroads had the right to allow them to use the Right of Ways
without the need for further permission from the adjoining
landowners and deny any wrongdoing.

Class Members include current or previous owners of land next to
or under a railroad Right of Way, at any time since the cable was
installed, in the following counties: Champaign, Clinton, Cook,
DeKalb, DeWitt, DuPage, Grundy, Jersey, Kane, Lake, Lawrence, Lee,
Livingston, Logan, Macoupin, Madison, McLean, Menard, Ogle,
Peoria, Piatt, Sangamon, St. Clair, Tazewell, Whiteside, Will, and
Woodford. Class members can find out when fiber-optic cable was
installed in a particular Right of Way by visiting
http://www.IllinoisFiberSettlement.comor calling 1-800-589-1427.
Class members will have an opportunity to claim cash benefits if
the Court approves the Proposed Settlement.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

   -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed,

   -- the length of time they owned the property, and

   -- how many people co-own the property.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide the Defendants with a
permanent Telecommunications Easement, which gives them the right
to use the railroad Rights of Way for their fiber optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment, if they don't already have
that right.

For more information regarding the Class Action visit
http://www.IllinoisFiberSettlement.comor call 1-800-589-1427.


R+L CARRIERS: Sued for Violations of California Wage & Hour Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mendez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. R+L Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02478 (N.D. Calif.
May 20, 2011), asserts claims for violations of California wage
and hour laws.

Defendants are national motor freight carrier companies which
service all 50 states in addition to Canada, Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic.

Plaintiff and the proposed class are California based truck
drivers employed by defendants.

The plaintiff avers that defendants routinely failed to make
available to plaintiff and the proposed class meal and rest
periods as mandated by California law, did not compensate
plaintiffs for missed meals and rest periods, failed to pay
plaintiffs for all hours worked, and intentionally provided
inaccurate wage statements to plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205

               - and -

          Marvin E. Krakow, Esq.
          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com
                  mmorrison@akgllp.com


SAFELITE GROUP: Former Technician Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glassbytes reports that a former Safelite technician is seeking a
class action suit against the company for allegations related to
overtime pay, among other claims.  While the suit originally was
filed in a California Superior Court in October 2010, plaintiff
Joseph Perez recently filed a petition for leave to appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after his request for
class certification was denied in a California federal district
court in late April.

Mr. Perez, a California resident, alleges in the suit that he and
other associates in the state have been denied overtime wages they
claim he believes they were owed for work more than eight hours
per day and 40 hours per week.  He further alleges that the
company has had a consistent policy of requiring associates within
the state of California "to work at least five hours without an
uninterrupted meal period and failing to pay such employees one
hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
each workday that the meal period is not provided or provided
after five hours."

Judge Perez also makes claims related to "rest periods," and
alleges that Safelite consistently has failed to provide him and
others rest periods of 10 minutes per four hours worked, "as
required by California state wage and hour laws."

The former Safelite technician goes on to claim that the company
has "had a consistent policy of not reimbursing associates for
tools and uniforms purchased as a necessary condition and
requirement of employment, as well as their out-of-pocket expenses
to maintain uniforms (including sanitization) as a requirement of
employment."

The district court had denied the class certification as it "found
it unlikely that prospective injunctive relief is more valuable to
plaintiff or predominant in the action than monetary relief,"
according to Mr. Perez's appeal. In addition, the district court
had ruled that the plaintiff must show that "questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."

Mr. Perez claims the alleged class is composed of current and
former "Mobile Pro" Safelite technicians in California who both
repair and replace auto glass.  "The essence of plaintiff's claims
is that [Safelite] has violated California law by failing to pay
overtime to its Mobile Pros," writes Mr. Perez's counsel.

One of the major controversies in the case, according to court
documents, has been whether technicians can be exempt from
overtime under the outside sales exemption.  According to court
documents, Safelite argues that the California technicians noted
in the case do fit into this classification, which requires that
such employees spend 50% or more of their time selling.  However,
Mr. Perez's counsel argues that, "given the number of assignments
per day and the amount of time each assignment takes to complete,
it is impossible for [Safelite] to establish the 50% threshold."

The appeals document says that the main job duties of Safelite
technicians are to service the company's existing customers,
install auto glass, and cultivate new business, and that the
company says Perez performed seven jobs per day on average, and
that other employees performed 3.6 jobs per day and that each job
took 60 to 90 minutes to complete, with no jobs being completed
between 12 and 12:30 p.m.

"As such, according to defendant, Mobile Pros spend approximately
4.1 hours to 5.9 hours repairing vehicles and eating lunch with
additional time added in for traveling from location to location,"
writes the plaintiff.  ". . . By defendant's own testimony, it
would be impossible for Mobile Pros to spend more than half their
time 'cultivating new business.'"

Mr. Perez further argues that without class certification, his
"individual claims . . . [are] too small to justify the costs of
litigation."

Mr. Perez is represented by the law firm of Kingsley and Kingsley
APC in Encino, Calif.  At press time, the court had not yet
responded to the petition for leave to appeal.

Safelite spokesperson Melina Metzger declined to comment on the
case, citing the pending litigation.


STARBUCKS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Minimum Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Starbucks fails to pay minimum wages or overtime during its
mandatory 24-hour training period for baristas.

A copy of the Complaint in Cooper v. Starbucks Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1-11-CV-201544 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/25/Starbucks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223


STIHL INC: Recalls 2.3-Mil Yard Power Products Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STIHL Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2.3 million gas powered STIHL trimmers,
brushcutters, KombiMotors, hedge trimmers, edgers, clearing saws,
pole pruners, and backpack blowers that utilize a toolless fuel
cap.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The level of ethanol and other fuel additives can distort the
toolless fuel cap, allowing fuel to spill, posing a fire and burn
hazard.

STIHL has received 81 reports of difficulty installing and
removing the fuel caps and fuel spillage.  No injuries have been
reported.

These yard power tools and model numbers are included in this
recall:

   Product Name
   & Description         Model Number     Serial Nos. Affected
   -------------         ------------     ---------------------
   Blower, backpack      BR 500              Up to 284053456
                         BR 550              Up to 284053456
                         BR 600              Up to 284053456
                         BR 600 Magnum       Up to 284053456

   Hedge Trimmer,        HL 90K              Up to 284101483
   extended reach        HL 100              Up to 284101483
                         HL 100 K            Up to 284101483

   Pole Pruner           HT 56 C-E           Up to 284398635
                         HT 100              Up to 284097165
                         HT 101              Up to 284097165
                         HT 130              Up to 284097165
                         HT 131              Up to 284097165

   Edger                 FC 56 C-E           Up to 284180999
                         FC 70 C-E           Up to 284180999
                         FC 90               Up to 284012099
                         FC 95               Up to 284012099
                         FC 100              Up to 284012099
                         FC 110              Up to 284012099

   Trimmer/Brushcutter   FS 40 C-E           Up to 284180999
                         FS 56 C-E           Up to 284180999
                         FS 56 RC-E          Up to 284180999
                         FS 70 RC-E          Up to 284180999
                         FS 90               Up to 284012099
                         FS 90 R             Up to 284012099
                         FS 100 RX           Up to 284012099
                         FS 110              Up to 284012099
                         FS 110 R            Up to 284012099
                         FS 110 RX           Up to 284012099
                         FS 130              Up to 284012099
                         FS 130 R            Up to 284012099

   Clearing Saw          FS 310              Up to 284012099

   KombiEngine           KM 56 RC-E          Up to 284180999
                         KM 90 R             Up to 284012099
                         KM 110 R            Up to 284012099
                         KM 130 R            Up to 284012099

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11226.html

Visit STIHL's Web site, http://www.stihlusa.com/for additional
photos of the power tools involved and photos of the toolless fuel
cap.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized STIHL dealers nationwide from July
2002 through May 2011 for between $190 and $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using these products and return
them to an authorized STIHL dealer for a free repair.  Consumers
can contact STIHL for instructions on identifying these toolless
fuel caps.  For additional information, contact STIHL toll-free at
(800) 233-4729 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.stihlusa.com/or e-mail to stihlrecall@stihl.us


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America LLC continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit over "hot fuel" in Kansas,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and the Company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refineries and retailers have been named as defendants
in one or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperature greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleges that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  The Company believes that there are
substantial factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in
these so called "hot fuel" lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek
nonmonetary relief in the form of an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature correcting equipment on their
retail fuel pumps and monetary relief in the form of damages, but
the plaintiffs have not quantified the damages they seek.  The
"tax" cases also seek monetary relief.  Plaintiffs have proposed a
formula (which the Company dispute) to measure these damages as
the difference between the amount of fuel excise taxes paid by
defendants and the amount collected by defendants on motor fuel
sales.  Plaintiffs have taken the position in filings with the
Court that under this approach, the Company's damages for an
eight-year period for one state would be approximately $10,700.
The Company denies liability and disagrees with the plaintiff's
positions.  All of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-
district litigation procedures.  On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled
that, with respect to two cases originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, it would grant
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs seeking
injunctive relief (implementation of fuel temperature equipment
and/or posting of notices regarding the effect of temperature on
fuel), and that it would defer plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class with respect to damages.  A TA entity was named in one of
those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA, and
as a result, there has been no class certified as to TA.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has denied a request for
interlocutory review of the Court's class certification decision,
and the litigation in the Kansas cases is proceeding.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas has not issued a
decision on class certification with respect to the remaining
cases that have been consolidated in the multi-district litigation
and discovery in those cases is ongoing.

Because these various motions are pending, the Company cannot
estimate the Company's ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if
any, related to these lawsuits.  However, the continued cost of
litigating these cases could be significant.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Renew Motion to Dismiss Comdata Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America LLC intends to renew its motion to
dismiss the new amended complaint filed by four independent truck
stop owners in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's May 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their complaint to add
the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on March 25, 2010.
The amended complaint also added as defendants Ceridian
Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are used
for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The amended
complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of Comdata's
contractual relationships with truck stops in connection with its
fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.  On March 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the
claims against TA in the amended complaint, but granted plaintiffs
leave to file a new amended complaint. Four independent truck stop
owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new amended complaint on April 21,
2011, repleading their claims.  The Company intends to renew the
Company's motion to dismiss the new amended complaint with
prejudice.  The Company believes that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against the
Company, but that the costs to defend this case could be
significant.


VERVE GLOBAL: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodin Enterprises Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Verve Global, Inc., d/b/a PCCTI a/k/a PC
Computer Institute, Case No. 2011-CH-18424 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. May 20, 2011), charges the defendant with faxing unsolicited
advertisements, a practice prohibited under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC Section 227.

Plaintiff, an Illinois resident who does business under the name
of Rodin Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Minuteman Press, relates that on
May 16, 2011, defendant faxed it an advertisement without first
receiving its express permission or invitation.

Defendant Verve Global is an Illinois corporation with its
corporate headquarters located at 2021 Midwest Road, Suite 300,
Oak Brook, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell S. Chaban, Esq.
          Kristen E. Hengtgen, Esq.
          LEVIN GINSBURG
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60601-2800
          Telephone: (312) 368-0100
          E-mail: mchaban@lgattorneys.com
                  khengtgen@lgattorneys.com


WALMART STORES: Recalls 255,000 General Electric Food Processors
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Walmart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 255,000 General Electric(R) Food
Processors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The safety interlock system on the recalled food processor can
fail; allowing operation without the lid secured which poses a
laceration hazard.  In addition, the product can emit smoke, or
catch fire, posing a fire hazard.

Walmart has received a total of 58 incident reports: 24 reports of
the food processor operating without the lid in place, of which 21
resulted in injuries to fingertips; and 34 reports of the unit
smoking, including 3 reports of fires.

This recall involves GE-branded digital, 14-cup food processors.
The food processors are black with stainless steel trim, and model
number 169203 is imprinted on the underside of the unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11227.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at: Walmart stores nationwide and Walmart.com from
September 2009 through February 2011 for a retail price of about
$50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food
processor and return the product to any Walmart for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Walmart Customer Service toll
free at (877) 207-0923 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.walmartstores.com/recalls


WARNER MUSIC: Sued Over Sale of Company to Access Industries
------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Cournoyer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Warner Music Group Corp., et al., Case No. 651367/2001
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. May 19, 2011), is a shareholder
class action brought by plaintiff on behalf of holders of the
common stock of Warner Music Group Corp. to enjoin the acquisition
of the publicly owned shares of WMG common stock by Airplanes
Music LLC and Airplanes Merger Sub, Inc.  Airplanes Music and
Merger Sub are affiliated with Access Industries, Inc.

On May 6, 2011, WMG and Access Industries jointly announced that
they had entered into a definitive agreement whereby Airplanes
Music, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, would acquire all
outstanding shares of WMG at $8.25 per share.  The plaintiff
relates that the $8.25 per share figure represents a mere 4.4%
premium from WMG's closing price of $7.90 on May 5, 2011, the last
trading day before the announcement.  The proposed transaction
values WMG at approximately $3.3 billion.

If the proposed transaction is completed, WMG will be an affiliate
of and controlled by Access.

In facilitating the acquisition of WMG by Access for grossly
inadequate consideration and through a flawed process, plaintiff
Cournoyer says each of the defendants breached and/or aided the
other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Mr.
Cournoyer avers that WMG, if properly exposed to the market for
corporate control, would bring a price materially in excess of the
amount offered in the proposed transaction.

According to the Complaint, the Merger Agreement contains a number
of deal protection devices that will impede a potential acquirer
from making a higher offer:

  -- a "No Shop" provision which prohibits the Company and its
     directors, officers, and employees from soliciting or
     facilitating alternative bids, including providing non-public
     information to other bidders.

  -- the Merger agreement provides a narrow exception to the No-
     Shop provision that allows the Board to respond to a
     "Takeover Proposal".  The Company, however, must notify
     Airplanes Music of the material terms of the "Takeover
     Proposal" and any non-public information requested by the new
     potential acquirer.

  -- the Merger Agreement provides that the Company will pay
     Airplanes Music $56 million in the event that the Company
     terminates the Merger Agreement in favor of a Superior
     Proposal.

  -- the proposed transaction requires only the affirmative vote
     of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common
     Stock as of the record date for the Company's shareholder
     meeting.

Plaintiff Derek Cournoyer is a resident of California and was, at
all relevant times, a continuous stockholder of defendant WMG.

Defendant WMG is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located at 75 Rockefeller Plaza, in New York.  WMG, a music
content company, provides recorded music and music publishing
services worldwide.

Defendant Airplanes Music LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company and is an affiliate of Access Industries.

Defendant Access Industries, is a privately held, U.S.-based
industrial group, which through its subsidiaries, operates in
natural resource and chemical, media and telecommunication, and
real estate sectors.  It provides commodities, technology, and
industrial products.  It also offers wireless communication and
production services to broadcast media and entertainment licensing
ventures.  In addition, it owns a diverse portfolio of hotels and
commercial real estate properties, as well as holdings in various
technology and retail sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          A Professional Corporation
          488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


WEIS MARKETS: Settles Class Action Over Paper Receipts
------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Tribune reports that Weis Markets, the parent company of
dozens of supermarkets throughout the East Coast, recently reached
a class action settlement over allegations it printed too many
numbers on some customers' credit or debit card receipts.

Anyone who made a purchase at Weis Markets, Mr. Z's Supermarket,
King's Supermarket, Scot's Lo Cost or SuperPetz pet store from
Dec. 4, 2006, through June 7, 2009, may be eligible to receive a
voucher up to $7.50 that can be used at a Weis Markets store.

Weis Markets has 162 stores, including four in Lackawanna County
and six in Luzerne County.

Some Weis Markets' customers filed the class action lawsuit, which
revolved around paper receipts that allegedly contained more
digits of the credit or debit card account number than was
allowable when the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act went into effect.  Weis Markets denied liability, but the
parties agreed to settle the claims to avoid the risk of further
litigation.


WESTWOOD APEX: 9th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district
court decision remanding to state court class claims for improper
business practices against Westwood Apex and its related entities.

Westwood Apex is a subsidiary entity of the for-profit higher
education institution Westwood College.  On May 17, 2010, Westwood
Apex commenced a breach of contract action in the San Bernardino
County Superior Court against Jesus Contreras to recover $20,000
on an unpaid student loan.  Mr. Contreras, a former Westwood
College student, filed class action counterclaims, alleging that
Westwood Apex and additional counterclaim defendants -- Westwood
College and affiliated entities and individuals -- committed fraud
and engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices in the
operation of the college.  In September 2010, the additional
counterclaim defendants filed a notice of removal in the Central
District of California.  The district court remanded the action to
state court on grounds that removal of an additional counterclaim
defendant was not authorized by the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA).

The Westwood Entities appealed the district court ruling, which
appeal is styled As Westwood Apex, George Burnett, William Ojile,
Alta Colleges Inc., Westwood College Inc., Trav Corporation, Grant
Corporation, Wesgray Corporation, Bounty Island Corporation v.
Jesus A. Contreras, Case No. 11-55362 (9th Cir).  Circuit Judges
Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Jay Bybee, and the Honorable Kent J.
Dawson, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada,
sitting by designation, comprise the three-man panel.

Judge Smith holds that while CAFA eliminated several important
roadblocks to removal of class actions commenced in state court,
28 U.S.C. Section 1453(b) did not change the longstanding rule
that a party who is joined to such an action as a defendant to a
counterclaim or as a third-party defendant may not remove the case
to federal court.

Judge Bybee concurred with Judge Smith's ruling, but further
emphasized that Congress may wish to reexamine the applicability
of the original defendant rule in the CAFA context.  He notes that
the removing parties did not choose to litigate the lawsuit in
statement, rather they were forced into state court when Mr.
Contreras transformed a debt-collection suit into an unrelated
multi-million class action by filing a counterclaim against the
original plaintiff and the removing parties.  "Had Contreras filed
this class action separately and not by means of a counterclaim,
the defendants could have removed the case from state court to
federal court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453; but because Contreras did
not do so, they must now, by happenstance, litigate in state
court," he said.

A copy of the 9th Circuit's May 2, 2011, decision is available at
http://is.gd/SewBkYfrom Leagle.com.


                            *********

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  * * *