CAR_Public/110531.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 31, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 106

                             Headlines

9/11 LITIGATION: Iran Has Role in Tragedy, Class Action Claims
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Settlement Still Pending
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Judge OKs $3MM Strip-Search Settlement
APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Stockholder Suits

ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Wolfe" Suit in Colorado
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Okays $410MM Overdraft Fee Class Action
BHP BILLITON: Emerson Poynter Files class Action in Arkansas
BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
CHINA VALVES: Continues to Defend Three Securities Class Suits

CITADEL BROADCASTING: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Nevada & Del.
CITY HOLDING: Unit Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Casto" Suit
CITY HOLDING: Defending "Clay" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
CKX INC: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
COLORADO: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Inmate's Damage Claims

DRUG RETAILERS: Lose Bid to Move West Va. Suit to Federal Court
EBAY INC: Sellers Presented Insufficient Evidence, 9th Cir. Holds
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Withdrawn
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss "Fouke" Suit Pending
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Plea to Dismiss Amended Gerber Suit Pending

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Defending DEP Unitholders Litigation in Del.
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Still Defends Davis & Weilersbacher Suits
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Settlement of "Delgado" Suit Now Funded
EQT PRODUCTION: Plaintiff Attys. Seek Injunction in Royalties Suit
FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Court Approval of "Pionteck" Suit Deal

FUSHI COPPERWELD: To Defend "Levy" Suit in New York
GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Remains Stayed by Bankruptcy
GSI GROUP: Releases 993,743 Shares Under Class Suit Settlement
INTERMUNE INC: Appeals From Actimmune Suits Dismissal Pending
INTERSECTIONS INC: Briefing Ongoing in Appeal From Suit Dismissal

INTERSECTIONS INC: Investigating New Claims in Amended Class Suit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Citiline Suit in New York
LAWSON AQUATICS: Recalls 11,940 Pool Drain Covers
LLOYDS BANKING: Continues to Defend Interbank Offered Rates Suit
MASSEY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Various Merger-Related Suits

MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
MASSEY ENERGY: Still Defends Age Discrimination Suit vs. Spartan
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Suit in Texas Now Concluded
MEDIACOM BROADBAND: Discovery Continues in "Knight" Suit
MEDIACOM BROADBAND: Court to Hear Merger-Related Suit MOU June 6

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Preliminary Injunction Denied in "Pittman" Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Kramer" Class Suit in Texas
MOTOROLA INC: 401(k)Plan Not Entitled to Share in Class Settlement
NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Sued Over Illegal Marketing Tactics

PARAMOUNT POOL: Recalls 30 Drain Covers Due to Incorrect Rating
POOL DRAIN COVER MAKERS: Recall 1-Mil. Pool and Spa Drain Covers
RAE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Calif. & Del.
SINO CLEAN: Defends "Redwen" Class Suit in California
SPARK NETWORKS: L.I.S.T. Suit Over Great Hill Proposal Dismissed

ST. IVES LABS: Sued Over False Cellulite Shield Product Claims
STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
TIPPECANOE, IN: Jail Faces Class Action Over Grievance Policy
WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls 50,850 Pool Drain Covers
WHITNEY HOLDING: Parties in Merger-Related Suits Reach Settlement

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Awaits Court Okay of FCRA Suit in Florida
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Sets July 6, 2012 Trial Date in 401(k) Suit
YRC WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Co-Lead Plaintiffs Stipulation

* Plaintiffs' Lawyers Abuse Class Action Reforms
* Supreme Court SPD Ruling Impacts ERISA Class Actions




                             *********


9/11 LITIGATION: Iran Has Role in Tragedy, Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Mason Schroeder, writing for phillyBurbs.com, reports that
nearly a decade after the devastating terrorist attacks that
claimed their family members, a group of Bucks County 9/11
survivors says they've found definitive evidence that Iran played
a key role in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy.

In documents unsealed on May 19, lawyers for the group named a key
player in the attacks and detailed how, they say, Iranian
officials helped the hijackers enter this country.

And they challenged the U.S. government to declassify documents
they claim validate their findings.

"[Thurs]day, nearly a decade after the attacks that took so many
of our loved ones away, we believe the 9/11 families and the
American people deserve to know the full truth about Iran's
complicity," said Thomas E. Mellon Jr., Esq., a Doylestown
attorney who is leading a consortium of eight law firms involved
in the suit.

"The 9/11 Commission called for further investigation by the U.S.
government into the al-Qaida-Iran-Hezbollah relationship, but
until now there's been no indication that any government agency
has taken any action to pursue this matter."

The documents are part of a $100 billion federal lawsuit filed in
2006 on behalf of seven Bucks County families who lost relatives
in the terror attacks.

Former Lower Makefield resident Fiona Havlish, whose husband,
Donald, died on the 101st floor of the north tower of the World
Trade Center, said she hopes the suit forces U.S. officials to
admit what they know about Iran's role and take action against
that nation.

"We simply want to make sure that those who are responsible for
assisting the Sept. 11 terrorists in their attack on the United
States are found accountable for the harm they caused,"
Ms. Havlish said.

As part of the suit, the lawyers sent investigators all over the
world to ferret out information about the hijackers, and took
depositions from dozens of experts.

Janice Kephart, a former counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information
and former immigration counsel to the Sept. 11 Commission, is an
expert in the suit.

In her affidavit, which was made public Thursday, Ms. Kephart said
Iran put a "senior Hezbollah operative" on flights with the 9/11
hijackers in the months before the attacks, to ensure that the
men's passports, which they obtained in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't be
stamped with Iranian or Afghan travel stamps, red flags that would
have jeopardized their plan.

The lawsuit names Imad Mughniyah as the main liaison between
Iran's leadership and al-Qaida, and says that Mr. Mughniyah played
an active role in planning the 9/11 attacks.

Mr. Mughniyah, a Lebanese Shiite, was a top commander in
Hezbollah, the terrorist organization created and supported by
Iran since the early 1980s, according to the suit.  He was killed
on Feb. 14, 2008, in Damascus, Syria.

Before 9/11, Mr. Mellon said, the FBI considered Mr. Mughniyah to
be the world's most wanted terrorist, accusing him of
masterminding the April 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut
that killed 63 people.

He's also implicated in the October 1983 simultaneous attacks on
the U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut that killed 241
U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers; and the kidnapping and murder
of numerous U.S. hostages in Lebanon, including the CIA's Beirut
station chief William Buckley and U.S. Marine Lt. Colonel Richard
Higgins.

Mr. Mughniyah was also wanted by the FBI for his involvement in
the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847 and the murder of U.S. Navy
diver Robert Dean Stethem, and by Interpol for his role in the
1992 attack on the Israeli Embassy, and the July 1994 attack on
the AMIA Jewish community center, both in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Mellon said the 9/11 Commission came to similar conclusions
about Mughniyah's role, as well as the roles of top Iranian
officials in planning the attacks.

"The 9/11 Commission discovered, just days before publication of
its report, important U.S. intelligence documents that detailed
Iran's involvement in aiding and abetting the 9/11 plot,"
Mr. Mellon said.

He pointed to page 240 of the report, in which the commission
stated that "a senior Hezbollah operative visited Saudi Arabia to
coordinate activities there," and that this "senior Hezbollah
operative" and his associate were on the same air flights as
several of the future hijackers who were traveling to and from
Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

"We have compelling evidence that the senior Hezbollah operative
was Imad Mughniyah," added Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq., another
lawyer involved in the suit.

Mr. Mughniyah was well-known among terrorist experts as an agent
of Iran who organized terrorist operations for Iran and Hezbollah,
Mellon said.

"Mughniyah's participation in the hijackers' preparations for the
9/11 attacks leaves no doubt that Iran was directly involved in,
and had foreknowledge of, a planned terrorist attack on the U.S.,"
he said.

Mr. Mellon said gathering evidence for the suit has been a long
and frustrating process that seems to be finally paying off.

"Developing evidence of Iran's involvement with al-Qaida regarding
the events of 9/11 is like putting together a large jigsaw puzzle
where many of the pieces are missing and will never be found.
Still, the picture is clear that Iran's and Hezbollah's complicity
cannot be seriously challenged," said Mr. Mellon.

The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York has already entered a default judgment against the
Iranian government, Mr. Mellon said, and the Bucks County
plaintiffs have asked the courts to enter judgment against Iran.

Iranian officials have so far ignored every legal notice connected
to the lawsuit, Mr. Mellon said.

Plaintiff Ellen Saracini, a Lower Makefield resident whose
husband, Victor, was captain of United Flight 175, which was the
second aircraft to hit the World Trade Center, said she hoped the
new documents are a step toward justice being served.

"The Sept. 11 attacks were an attack on the American way of life
and on the American belief in a civil society where we respect
others and resolve our differences in an orderly and peaceful way.
It is only appropriate that those who are attacking our way of
life are found accountable in our American system."


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
against Akamai Technologies, Inc., remain pending, according to
the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as
well as against the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.  The complaints were filed
allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during different time periods, all beginning on October 28,
1999 and ending on various dates. The complaints are similar and
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended
complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions. The
consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class period as
October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000. A Special Litigation
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized
management to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding that
was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers. The parties negotiated a settlement that was
subject to approval by the District Court. On February 15, 2005,
the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the
settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a
modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the
original settlement agreement. On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement. On August 25,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of a new
proposed settlement --among plaintiffs, the underwriter
defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer
defendants -- plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes. On October 5, 2009, the
District Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan
of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes. An order and final judgment was entered on
November 4, 2009. Notices of appeal of the District Court's
October 5, 2009 opinion and order have been filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If the District
Court's order is upheld on appeal, the Company would have no
material liability in connection with this litigation, and the
litigation would be resolved. The Company has recorded no
liability for this matter as of March 31, 2011.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Judge OKs $3MM Strip-Search Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge approved a $3 million settlement for a class that claimed
the Allegheny County Jail performed unconstitutional strip-
searches on all incoming pre-trial detainees.

In an amended 2007 class action against Allegheny and jail
officials, named plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Karen Murphy said
they sustained unconstitutional strip-searches after being charged
with nonfelony crimes.

Prior to March 18, 2008, the Allegheny County Jail "had a policy
and practice of strip searching all individuals entering ACJ who
were placed in jail clothing, regardless of their criminal charge
and without reasonable suspicion to believe they were concealing a
weapon or contraband," according to a 37-page opinion and order
filed on May 24.

Mr. Delandro claimed he was strip-searched multiple times after
being arrested in April 2006 for allegedly failing to pay child
support.

Ms. Murphy said she received similar treatment after an
August 2005 arrest on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct
and harassment.

The pair won a preliminary injunction in March 2008, when a judge
enjoined the defendants "from illegally strip-searching all
pretrial detainees entering custody at ACJ in the absence of
individualized reasonable suspicion," U.S. District Judge Terrence
McVerry noted in the May 24 opinion.

In April 2009, following completion of discovery, Mr. Delandro and
Ms. Murphy filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their
claim that the strip-search policy was unconstitutional.

"In support of their motion, plaintiffs produced deposition
testimony which confirmed that during the class period, defendants
maintained a practice of conducting blanket strip and visual
cavity searches on all pretrial detainees who were given a jail
uniform and processed into the jail's general population without
individualized reasonable suspicion that they possessed a weapon
or contraband," Judge McVerry wrote.

Defendants also sought summary judgment, arguing "that the search
policy was justified by ACJ's need for security and safety . . .
[and] that the policy was necessary to prevent detainees from
smuggling contraband into the jail," the judge summarized.

By December 2009, after dismissing the individual defendants from
the case, the court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment as to
the county's liability.

Under the settlement, Mr. Delandro and Ms. Murphy should each
receive $18,000 for their efforts in prosecuting the litigation,
Judge McVerry ruled.

Each member of the class, which could exceed 12,000 individuals,
are to receive no more than $3,000 apiece under the settlement.

Debates over the constitutionality of strip-search policies at
prisons are not new to federal appeals courts.  Because of
dichotomy at this level, the Supreme Court agreed last month to
rule on one case involving a blanket strip-search policy in
Burlington County, N.J.

In its 1979 decision in Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court
established a balancing test to determine whether a prison's
strip-search policy can be deemed reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment, enumerating four factors for judges to weigh a
facility's legitimate security needs against an inmate's privacy
rights.

In Bell, the court found that a short-term, federal, custodial
facility was not unreasonable in requiring all inmates to be
strip-searched after making contact with an outside visitor.

Circuit courts "have interpreted Bell to require that a prison
have reasonable suspicion that a particular arrestee is concealing
weapons or other contraband before conducting a strip-search of
that arrestee," Judge McVerry wrote on May 24.  "Some of these
courts have also concluded that Bell allows such reasonable
suspicion to be established categorically for certain groups of
prison detainees, such as those charged with felonies or violent
or drug-related misdemeanors."

Recently, however, "the proverbial tide has turned with respect to
suits challenging the constitutionality of such policies," he
wrote.

Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
in 2008 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in 2010 said it was constitutional for Georgia's Fulton
County Jail and the San Francisco Sheriff's Department,
respectively, to enforce a blanket strip-search policy for all
incoming arrestees -- even in the absence of reasonable suspicion
to believe they were hiding contraband.  The United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined that trend last year with
the ruling that is now on its way to the Supreme Court.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and order Granting Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Judgment in Delandro, et al. v. The
County of Allegheny, Case No. 06-cv-00927 (D. Pa.), is available
at http://is.gd/d6f4oN


APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation disclosed that appeals from the
settlement of the class action lawsuit against its subsidiary JNI
Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

The Company acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003. In November
2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and the
underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of
common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS). The complaint alleged
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in connection with JNI's public offerings. This lawsuit
was among more than 300 class action lawsuits pending in this
District Court that have come to be known as the "IPO laddering
cases." Pursuant to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), in mid-2009 a settlement was
reached in all of the cases. In October 2009, the Court issued an
order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the
case. The settlement did not have a material impact on the
Company. The Court subsequently issued a final judgment. Several
appeals of the settlement and judgment were filed between
October 29 and November 4, 2009. Should the settlement be
overturned on appeal and the final judgment vacated, the Company's
liability, if any, could not be reasonably estimated at this time.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Stockholder Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., intends to seek dismissal of
purported stockholder class action lawsuits, which it expects to
be consolidated in a California federal court, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock. The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that the Company and certain of the Company's current
and former employees and directors violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's lorcaserin program, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On
November 19, 2010, eight prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead
counsel. The Court took the motions to consolidate under
submission on January 14, 2011. The Company expects the Court to
consolidate the actions, appoint a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and order the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated
complaint. In addition to the class actions, a complaint involving
similar legal and factual issues has been brought by at least one
individual stockholder. The Company intends to defend against the
claims advanced and to seek dismissal of these complaints. Due to
the early stage of these proceedings, the Company is not able to
predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible
losses relating to these claims.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Wolfe" Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2010, Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., received a complaint,
captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10
7365.  This federal securities purported class action was filed in
the United States District Court in the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants,
who purchased common stock of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. during the
period between February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.
The complaint names as defendants certain officers and directors
of the Company during such period.  The complaint includes
allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants, all related to the
Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in development known
as AppyScore.  The Company and the individual defendants are
evaluating the complaint, believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend
against these claims.  Although the Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, no lead plaintiff has yet been appointed as
is required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act for
this action to proceed.  This action was also transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated
January 21, 2011.  The action has been assigned a District of
Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 13, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Okays $410MM Overdraft Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America will pay $410 million to settle a nationwide class action
that accused it of rearranging debits and credits on bank accounts
to maximize overdraft fees.

U.S. District Judge James Lawrence approved the settlement on
May 24.

"The parties reached the settlement through arms'-length
negotiations with the assistance of Professor Eric Green, an
experienced and well-respected mediator," he wrote.

Attorneys' fees, service awards and settlement-administration
costs are to be allocated from the $410 million fund.

The class was defined as "all holders of BofA account who, from
January 1, 2001 through preliminary approval, incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of debit re-sequencing" and includes
"well over 1 million individuals spread across the country,"
according to the 18-page order.

Judge Lawrence appointed 32 class representatives and 18 class
counsels.

He also approved a notice program made up of a website, toll-free
number, mailed notice and advertisements of the settlement in
People magazine, Sports Illustrated, TV Guide, Facebook and Yahoo,
to name a few, all which will be paid for out of the settlement
fund.

The final approval hearing is set for Nov. 7, 2011.

A copy of the Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and
Certifying Settlement Class in In Re: Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/26/bofa%20settlement.pdf


BHP BILLITON: Emerson Poynter Files class Action in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP, with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and
Houston, Texas, on May 20 disclosed that it filed a class action
lawsuit against certain BHP Billiton Petroleum entities,
Chesapeake Operating, Inc., and Clarita Operating, LLC on behalf
of their clients Sam and April Lane of Greenbrier, Arkansas.  The
class action complaint was filed in Faulkner County Circuit Court
in Conway, Arkansas.

The class action alleges these oil and gas companies operate
certain injection wells near Greenbrier and Guy, Arkansas that
have caused thousands of earthquakes in central Arkansas,
resulting in damages to residents in Faulkner County and those
counties that border it (Conway, Van Buren, Cleburne, Perry and
White).  Further, the class action case seeks millions of dollars
in damages for property damage, loss of fair market value in real
estate, emotional distress, and damages related to the purchase of
earthquake insurance.  Additionally, attorneys for the Halls and
the class of Arkansas residents also contemplate injunctive relief
to ensure the continued halt of operations of two injection wells
operated by Defendants, and potentially to stop other injection
wells that are contributing to the unprecedented numbers of
earthquakes suffered in the State of Arkansas.

Attorney Scott Poynter of Emerson Poynter represents Mr. and Mrs.
Hall, and says the case is important to every citizen of Arkansas
due to the environmental impact the gas wells have on the State's
natural resources and beauty, and hopes to represent other
Arkansans concerned about the wells and resulting earthquakes.  If
you have questions or concerns about your legal rights concerning
recent outbreak of earthquakes in Central Arkansas, please contact
us.

Emerson Poynter LLP has a national and international class-action
legal practice with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston,
Texas.  Emerson Poynter handles complex commercial, environmental
and consumer protection litigation throughout the United States.
It has substantial experience in litigating large complex class-
action cases and serves in a leadership position in numerous
cases.

CONTACT: Scott E. Poynter, Esq
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: 501.907.2555
         Tel toll free: 800.663.9817
         E-mail: earthquake@emersonpoynter.com
         Web site: http://www.emersonpoynter.com


BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In May and June 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)). On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases. The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.
On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend. On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint. On
July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint and on September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed another
amended complaint. On September 27, 2010, the Company filed
another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint, which was heard
by the Court on November 1, 2010.  The Court took the Company'
Motion under submission in November 2010, and in February 2011 the
Court denied the Motion to Dismiss. The Company believes that the
lawsuit is meritless and it intends to defend the cases
vigorously.


CHINA VALVES: Continues to Defend Three Securities Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Valves Technology, Inc., continues to defend itself against
three class action lawsuits relating to the Company's acquisitions
of Changsha Valve and Hanwei Valve, according to the Company's May
10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 4, 2011, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
naming the Company, its Chairman and certain present and former
senior executives as defendants, asserting claims for certain
violations of the securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.
The complaint, which is styled Donald Foster, et al. v. China
Valves Technology, Inc., et al., is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Substantially identical complaints, styled Donald London, et al.
v. China Valves Technology, Inc., et al., and Elliott Greenberg,
et al. v. China Valves Technology, Inc. et al., were filed in the
same court on February 17, 2011, and March 8, 2011, respectively.
The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock at allegedly artificially high prices
during the period between January 12, 2010 and January 13, 2011,
and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The
allegations in the complaints relate to the Company's acquisitions
of Changsha Valve and Hanwei Valve and include allegations
regarding the Company's financial statements and press releases.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
statements about the nature and quality of the Company's
acquisition of Changsha Valve were materially false and misleading
and that the Company's statements failed to describe the role in
the transaction of an alleged related party. In addition, the
complaints allege that the Company's statements about the Hanwei
Valve acquisition were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the alleged involvement of certain related
parties and allegedly misdescribed the transaction as a purchase
of assets rather than as a purchase of an entity. The Company has
not yet responded to any complaint, but intends to contest the
allegations and to defend itself vigorously.


CITADEL BROADCASTING: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Nevada & Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation is facing three class action
lawsuits in Nevada and Delaware over its merger agreement with
Cumulus Media, Inc., according to the Company's May 13, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Cumulus Media Inc., Cadet Holding Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cumulus, and Cadet Merger Corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of HoldCo, which provides that, upon
completion of the merger of Cumulus Merger Sub into the Company,
each outstanding share of class A common stock and class B common
stock of the Company (other than shares owned by Cumulus Merger
Sub, held in treasury by the Company or pursuant to which a holder
has properly exercised and perfected appraisal rights under
Delaware law), will, at the election of the holder thereof and
subject to proration, be converted into the right to receive (i)
$37.00 in cash, or (ii) 8.525 shares of class A common stock, par
value $0.01 per share, of Cumulus. In addition, holders of Special
Warrants to purchase class B common stock of the Company will have
the right to elect to have their Special Warrants adjusted at the
effective time of the Cumulus Merger to become the right to
receive upon exercise the (i) Cash Consideration or (ii) Stock
Consideration, subject to proration.

On March 14, 2011, the Company, its board of directors, and
Cumulus were named in a putative shareholder class action
complaint filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by
a purported Citadel shareholder. On March 23, 2011, these same
defendants, as well as Cadet Holding Corporation and Cadet Merger
Corporation, were named in a second putative shareholder class
action complaint filed in the same court by another purported
Citadel shareholder. The complaints allege that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Cumulus
Merger for allegedly inadequate consideration and following an
allegedly unfair sale process. The complaint in the first action
also alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by allegedly withholding material information relating to
the Cumulus Merger. The two complaints further allege that the
Company and Cumulus aided and abetted the Citadel directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the complaint filed in the
second action alleges, additionally, that Cadet Holding Company
and Cadet Merger Corporation aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other
things, a declaration that the action can proceed as a class
action, an order enjoining the completion of the Cumulus Merger,
rescission of the Cumulus Merger, attorneys' fees, and such other
relief as the court deems just and proper. The complaint filed in
the second action also seeks rescissory damages.

On May 6, 2011, a third action challenging the Cumulus Merger was
filed. In particular, on that date, two purported common
stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, its board of directors, Cumulus,
Cadet Holding Corporation, and Cadet Merger Corporation in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges
that these directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by approving the Cumulus Merger for
allegedly inadequate consideration and following an allegedly
unfair sale process and that the remaining defendants aided and
abetted these alleged breaches. The complaint seeks, among other
things, an order enjoining the Cumulus Merger, a declaration that
the action is properly maintainable as a class action, and
rescission of the merger agreement, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
actions.


CITY HOLDING: Unit Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Casto" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2010, City National Bank was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, styled Casto, et al. v. City National Bank,
alleging that the manner in which City National assessed overdraft
fees to its consumer checking accounts violates the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act, breached an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and creates an unjust enrichment to
City National. The amount claimed by the plaintiffs has not been
determined, but could be material.  On October 8, 2010, City
National filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was heard on December
13, 2010.  Proposed orders were submitted to the Circuit Court on
December 30, 2010, but no ruling has been made.

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


CITY HOLDING: Defending "Clay" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, City Holding Company and City National Bank were
named as defendants in a putative class action styled Clay, et
al., v. City Holding Company and City National Bank, alleging that
the manner in which City National assessed overdraft fees to its
consumer checking accounts, breached an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and created unjust enrichment to City
National.  The amount claimed by the plaintiffs has not been
determined, but could be material.

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


CKX INC: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CKx, which owns name and
image rights to Elvis Presley, Graceland and Muhammad Ali, among
others, is selling itself too cheaply to Apollo Global Management,
for $509 million or $5.50 a share, shareholders say in a class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Vanwhy v. CKx, Inc., et al., Case No.
6519 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/26/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Bruce G. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE G. MURPHY
          265 Llwyds Lane
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (828) 737-0500


COLORADO: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Inmate's Damage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a district
court's dismissal of Larry Gordon's damage claims against the
Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.  The Appellate Court
panel consists of Circuit Judges Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr., Monroe G.
McKay, and Scott Mattheson, Jr.

A class action lawsuit was initiated by Colorado state prisoners
in the early 1990s, alleging violations of disabled prisoners'
rights.  In 2003, the parties entered into a consent decree,
whereby the Defendants would bring the state prison system into
compliance with applicable statutes and a procedure was
established by which individual inmates may bring damage claims,
which would be determined by a special master.

Pursuant to the consent decree, Larry Gordon filed an individual
claim for damages.  Upon review, the special master denied Mr.
Gordon's claim and the district court affirmed that ruling.

Mr. Gordon appealed the district court decision.  In response,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the consent
decree did not authorize the district court decision on individual
damage claims to be appealed to the 10th Circuit.

Upon review, the 10th Circuit denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

"As for the merits of Mr. Gordon's claim for damages, none of his
filings to this court convince us the special master erred in
finding he did not suffer from a covered disability as defined by
the settlement agreement.  We therefore affirm the dismissal of
his claims for substantially the same reasons given by the
special master and the district court," the 10th Circuit said.

The 10th Circuit noted that it previously granted Mr. Gordon's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and thus,
reminds him of his obligation to continue making partial fee
payments until the filing fee has been paid in full.  The 10th
Circuit also denied Mr. Gordon's pro se motion regarding the
issuance of subpoenas.

A copy of the Appellate Court's May 10, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/3IPQRyfrom Leagle.com.


DRUG RETAILERS: Lose Bid to Move West Va. Suit to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Schoenberg, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., CVS Caremark Corp. and four other drug retailers lost
their bid to move to federal court a lawsuit by the state of West
Virginia over pricing of generic drugs on claims the case was a
class action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, on said that the
drug retailers failed to show that the state was pursuing a group
lawsuit, or class action, which would have required the litigation
to be handled by a federal court.  The four other defendants are
Target Corp., Walgreen Co., Kroger Co. and Sears Holdings Corp.' s
Kmart chain.

The lawsuit "was brought under a West Virginia statute regulating
the practice of pharmacy and the West Virginia Consumer Credit
Protection Act, neither of which includes provisions providing for
a typical class action," the appeals court wrote in its 2-1
decision.

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw sued the retailers
in state court in Boone County, alleging the stores overcharged
state residents while filling prescriptions in violation of two
state laws.  West Virginia law requires substitution of generic
drugs when available and requires pharmacies to pass on the
savings from using generics to consumers, according to the state's
lawsuit.

The defendants sought to move the case to federal court in
Charleston, West Virginia, claiming the lawsuit was a "disguised
class action."

Lower Costs

The state, which is seeking disgorgement and other civil
penalties, alleges the defendants aren't giving consumers the full
benefit of the lower wholesale costs pharmacies pay for generic
drugs.

In a dissent, U.S. appeals judge Ronald Lee Gilman, said West
Virginia's case has the elements of a class action and should
remain with the federal court.

"There is a saying that if something looks like a duck, walks like
a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck," Mr. Gilman
said.

Greg Rossiter, a spokesman for Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-
Mart, said Mr. Gilman's dissent sums up the company's view
"nicely."

Molly Koenst, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based Target, declined
to comment.

Kimberly Freely, a spokeswoman for Sears, based in Hoffman
Estates, Illinois, and Keith Dailey, a spokesman for Cincinnati-
based Kroger, declined to comment.  Tiffani Washington, a
spokeswoman for Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen, and Christine
Cramer, a spokeswoman for Woonsocket, Rhode Island- based CVS
Caremark, also declined to comment.

The case is West Virginia v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., 11-1251, 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals (Richmond).


EBAY INC: Sellers Presented Insufficient Evidence, 9th Cir. Holds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district
court's summary judgment ruling in favor of eBay, Inc. in relation
to monopolization allegations in In re eBay Seller Antitrust
Litigation.

Sellers filed a putative class action against eBay Inc., alleging
monopolization and attempted monopolization of online auctions
market and person-to-person systems under the Sherman Act and
several state law claims.  The District Court, however, disagreed.
In their appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred by
(1) concluding that Plaintiffs' evidence did not sufficiently
demonstrate causal antitrust injury, and (2) failing to consider
and grant their F.R.C.P. Rule 56(f) motion.

The appeal is captioned, In Re: eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation,
Michael Malone; Ann Farmer; Todd Van Pelt; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and Jeffrey Enebely v.
eBay Inc., Case No. 10-15642 (9th Cir.).

The 9th Circuit held that the District Court correctly found that,
although the dominant firm entry model was offered as a
theoretical method of showing overcharge, the model was not
implemented, so no inferences regarding injury can reasonably be
drawn from it regarding actual injury to Plaintiffs.

The 9th Circuit also held that the District Court did not err in
ruling on eBay's motion for summary judgment without delay for
further discovery.  "Despite having filed a Rule 56(f)
declaration, Plaintiffs acquiesced to a prompt disposition of the
motion in several ways," the 9th Circuit said.

The Appellate Court panel consists of Circuit Judges Stephen
Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Ronald M. Gould.

A copy of the 9th Circuit's May 9, 2011, memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/A1nkJ7from Leagle.com.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a May 11, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Emergency Medical Services Corporation
disclosed that plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit
pending in Delaware have withdrawn their motion for preliminary
injunction relating to the Company's merger with CDRT Acquisition
Corporation and CDRT Merger Sub, Inc.

Eleven purported shareholder class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of February 13, 2011, among EMSC, CDRT Acquisition
Corporation and CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., have been filed in state
court in Delaware and federal and state courts in Colorado against
various combinations of EMSC, the members of the Company's board
of directors, and other parties.  Seven actions were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery beginning on February 22, 2011, which
have since been consolidated into one action entitled In re
Emergency Medical Services Corporation Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.  On April 4, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint.  Two
actions, entitled Scott A. Halliday v. Emergency Medical Services
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2011CV316 (filed on February 15,
2011), and Alma C. Howell v. William Sanger, et. al., Case No.
2011CV488 (filed on March 1, 2011), were filed in the District
Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado.  Two other actions, entitled
Michael Wooten v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 11-CV-00412 (filed on February 17, 2011), and Neal
Greenberg v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case
No. 11-CV-00496 (filed on February 28, 2011), were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  These actions
generally allege that the directors of EMSC, Onex Corporation
and/or Onex Corporation's subsidiaries breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things: approving the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, which allegedly were
financially unfair to EMSC and its public stockholders; agreeing
to provisions in the Merger Agreement that will allegedly prevent
the board from considering other offers; permitting the
unitholders agreement (which secures the majority votes in favor
of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement) and failing to
require a provision in the Merger Agreement requiring that a
majority of the public stockholders approve the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement; and/or making allegedly
materially inadequate disclosures.  These actions further allege
that certain defendants aided and abetted these breaches.  In
addition, the two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado contain individual claims brought under
Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, pertaining to the purported dissemination of
allegedly misleading proxy materials.

These actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
including an injunction halting the Merger or rescission of the
Merger, as applicable. The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware
action have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.  The
Company believes that all of the allegations in these actions are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend these matters.  If
any one of the plaintiffs is successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the Merger on the agreed-upon terms,
then such injunction may prevent the Merger from becoming
effective, or from becoming effective within the expected
timeframe.

On May 9, 2011, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a notice with the Delaware Court of Chancery withdrawing the
motion for a preliminary injunction they had filed on April 21,
2011; there is now no pending motion for a preliminary injunction
in any of the actions.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss "Fouke" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed by Richard Fouke remains pending while two
other class actions, which also sought to enjoin the Holdings
Merger transaction, were dismissed, according to the Company's May
10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On September 3, 2010, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise,
Enterprise GP, Enterprise Products GP, LLC, and Enterprise ETE LLC
entered into a merger agreement.  On November 22, 2010, the
Holdings Merger Agreement was approved by the unitholders of
Holdings and the merger of Holdings with and into Holdings
MergerCo and related transactions were completed, with Holdings
MergerCo surviving such merger.  Enterprise's membership interests
in Holdings MergerCo were subsequently contributed to EPO.

On September 9, 2010, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on
behalf of the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Sanjay Israni v.
EPE Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products
Company, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph
S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon
M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Israni Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
along with the named directors and Enterprise Products Company
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Holdings
Merger and that Holdings aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  On October 18, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  On March 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal of all claims
pending in that action without prejudice, with each party to bear
its own costs and fees.  The Court granted the Stipulation and
Proposed Order of Dismissal on March 18, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, Eugene Lonergan, Sr., a purported
unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Eugene Lonergan, Sr. v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph
S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon
M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Lonergan Complaint alleges that the named directors and EPE
Holdings breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, including failing to make adequate disclosures,
in connection with the Holdings Merger.  On October 8, 2010, the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a hearing on a
motion by the plaintiff to expedite the proceedings.  On October
11, 2010, the motion was denied.  On October 18, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  On March 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal of all claims
pending in that action without prejudice, with each party to bear
its own costs and fees.  The Court granted the Stipulation and
Proposed Order of Dismissal on March 18, 2011.

Additionally, on September 23, 2010, Richard Fouke, a purported
unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Richard Fouke v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products
Company, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products
GP, LLC, Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H.
Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E.
McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Fouke Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company, along with the
named directors, EPE Holdings, EPGP and EPCO breached the implied
contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection
with the Holdings Merger and that Holdings and the other
defendants aided and abetted in the alleged breach.  On October
18, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The Company
cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit nor the
amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve this
or any other lawsuit filed in connection with the Holdings Merger.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits
and any similar actions.

Each of the Israni, Lonergan and Fouke Complaints sought to enjoin
the Holdings Merger transaction.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Plea to Dismiss Amended Gerber Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s motion to dismiss an amended
class action and derivative complaint filed by Joel A. Gerber is
pending in Delaware, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On September 3, 2010, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise,
Enterprise GP, Enterprise Products GP, LLC, and Enterprise ETE LLC
entered into a merger agreement.  On November 22, 2010, the
Holdings Merger Agreement was approved by the unitholders of
Holdings and the merger of Holdings with and into Holdings
MergerCo and related transactions were completed, with Holdings
MergerCo surviving such merger.  Enterprise's membership interests
in Holdings MergerCo were subsequently contributed to EPO.

On November 15, 2010, Joel A. Gerber filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The complaint asserts claims against Enterprise GP
Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products
Company and the then directors of EPE Holdings for breach of
express and implied duties in connection with Holdings' sale of
TEPPCO GP to the Company in October 2009 and the Holdings Merger
in November 2010.  The complaint also asserts claims against Mr.
Duncan's estate, EPCO and the Company for tortious interference
and unjust enrichment in connection with the transactions.  The
complaint alleges that Holdings sold TEPPCO GP to the Company in
the 2009 Sale Transaction at an unfair price to Holdings and that
the members of EPE Holdings' Audit, Conflicts and Governance
Committee, which approved the 2009 Sale Transaction, were not
independent because of their relationship with Mr. Duncan.  The
complaint also alleges that the terms of the Holdings Merger were
unfair to Holdings' unitholders and that members of EPE Holdings'
ACG committee, which approved the Holdings Merger, were not
independent because of their relationship with Mr. Duncan.  On
December 13, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  In
response to the motion to dismiss, on March 18, 2011, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On April 1, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint with the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Defending DEP Unitholders Litigation in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is now facing a consolidated
class action lawsuit in Delaware on behalf of unitholders of
Duncan Energy Partners, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On March 8, 2011, Michael Crowley, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael
Crowley v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC.  The Crowley Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties
in connection with the Company's proposal to acquire the
outstanding publicly held common units of Duncan Energy Partners,
that Duncan Energy Partners and DEP GP aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that the Company along
with EPO have breached unspecified duties in connection with the
Company's proposal.

On March 11, 2011, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Sanjay Israni v.
Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products Holdings LLC,
Enterprise Products Operating LLC, W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F.
Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and Richard S.
Snell.  The Israni Complaint II alleges, among other things, that
the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the Company's proposal to acquire the outstanding
publicly held common units of Duncan Energy Partners and that the
Company along with all of the other named defendants aided and
abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 28, 2011, Michael Rubin, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael Rubin v.
Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey,
Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products Operating LLC.  The
Rubin Complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the Company's proposal to acquire the outstanding publicly
held common units of Duncan Energy Partners, that Duncan Energy
Partners and DEP GP aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and that the Company along with EPO have breached
unspecified duties in connection with the Company's proposal.

On April 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Crowley Complaint, the
Israni Complaint II, and the Rubin Complaint filed a Proposed
Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel, which the
Court granted on the same day consolidating the three actions into
a single action, captioned In re Duncan Energy Partners L.P.
Unitholders Litigation.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits and any similar actions.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Still Defends Davis & Weilersbacher Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s subsidiary continues to defend
itself against class action lawsuits pending in Texas state
courts, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, Merle Davis, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 269th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Duncan
Energy Partners L.P., W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William
A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, DEP Holdings,
LLC, and Enterprise Products Partners L.P.  The Davis Petition
alleges, among other things, that the Company and the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the Company's proposal to acquire the outstanding publicly
held common units of Duncan Energy Partners and that the Company
and Duncan Energy Partners aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 9, 2011, Donald Weilersbacher, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 334th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on
behalf of the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and
Richard S. Snell.  The Weilersbacher Petition alleges, among other
things, that the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary
duties in connection with the Company's proposal to acquire the
outstanding publicly held common units of Duncan Energy Partners
and that the Company aided and abetted in these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.

On March 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Davis Petition and the
Weilersbacher Petition filed a motion and proposed Order for
Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment of Interim Co-Lead
Counsel, and Order Compelling Limited Expedited Discovery.
Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently agreed to postpone
discovery until after plaintiffs file a consolidated petition.  On
March 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion and proposed
Order for Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment of
Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits and any similar actions.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Settlement of "Delgado" Suit Now Funded
---------------------------------------------------------
On May 30, 2008, Jeannette Delgado, a former Assistant Manager
filed a purported class action on behalf of all hourly (i.e. non-
exempt) employees of EPL Intermediate, Inc., in state court in Los
Angeles County alleging violations of certain California labor
laws and the California Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices. By statute, the purported
class extends back four years, to May 30, 2004. Plaintiff's
requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. The parties agreed to settle this
matter for approximately $1.9 million and executed a settlement
agreement. This amount was accrued for in the prior year and is
included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets
in accounts payable as of March 30, 2011.  The Court issued an
order granting final approval of the settlement on February 16,
2011, and the settlement is expected to be funded no later than
May 20, 2011, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2011.


EQT PRODUCTION: Plaintiff Attys. Seek Injunction in Royalties Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that for a
second time in less than two weeks, attorneys in the vast class
action lawsuits over coalfield gas rights asked a federal judge to
prohibit an energy company from -- as the plaintiffs describe it
-- tricking landowners into signing away up to half of what
they're owed.

The plaintiffs accuse EQT Production Co. of goading landowners
into contracts that split their gas royalties with coal companies
claiming part ownership.  According to the motion, plaintiffs
allege that the company dispatches its agents to knock on doors,
intentionally garble Virginia law and omit critical information in
an attempt to dupe the landowners into signing over a portion of
what they're owed completely.  Never, the motion states, do they
mention that the Virginia Supreme Court decided six years ago that
coal companies have no right to the royalties.  Nor do they tell
them that EQT is the named defendant in pending class action
lawsuits over the very issue at hand.

The lawsuit, one of five pending in U.S. District Court against
the state's two most powerful energy companies, consists of
landowners whose rights to the coalbed methane underneath their
property was leased, without their consent, by a state board. The
royalties from their "deemed leases" -- one-eighth of the profit
from the gas sucked from the coal seams beneath them -- has been
dumped into a state-run escrow account for decades and they've
never seen a dime.  They argue that the law allowing a corporation
to pump their gas without their consent, without giving them a
chance to negotiate their contract and without properly paying
them is unconstitutional and amounts to an illegal taking of one
person's property for another party's gain.

The Virginia Gas Owners Litigation Group -- a platoon of attorneys
representing the landowners -- describes EQT's attempts to secure
split agreements as a last-ditch effort to reduce their liability.
Once someone signs a split agreement and gets money from escrow --
even if it's just a portion of what they're owed -- they could be
excluded from joining the suit, the motions states.

They don't know exactly how, the attorneys say, but they're
certain the gas company or its affiliates also profit directly
from the split agreements.

"The coal companies and the gas companies are in bed together,"
said Don Barrett, a Mississippi-based lawyer leading the group.
"Why do they put on masks and rob the bank? We don't know yet.
But we're going to get to the bottom of it."

EQT spokesman Kevin West said the company has no nefarious purpose
in facilitating split agreements -- they do not benefit
financially when one is signed and are not paid when funds are
released from escrow.

"It's a benefit to everyone to reach some resolution," he said of
why the company encourages landowners to split their money with
the coal companies.

The royalties remain in a state-run escrow account until the
ownership conflict -- typically between the landowner and a
company that owns the coal right -- is resolved.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a lower court's
ruling that the landowner retains sole right to the coalbed
methane gas so long as they leased only their coal.  The
legislature followed suit in 2010, amending the Virginia Code to
specify that coal leases do not include coalbed methane.

Mr. West, the EQT spokesman, said the company interpreted the 2004
ruling as applying only to that specific case, contingent solely
on the language of the lease involved.  Each individual lease must
be handled on a case-by-case basis, he said.  Mr. West said the
company is simply expediting a resolution to the ownership
conflict by promoting split agreements -- otherwise land owners
would have to hire a lawyer and battle it out in court.

But the plaintiffs allege that the company is introducing a
conflict where no conflict exists -- the landowner is the only
party with any claim to the gas royalties and thus should be paid
in full.

They filed a similar motion early this month against CNX Gas
Corp., which agreed to immediately cease encouraging split
agreements until a future hearing.

Mr. Barrett said they offered EQT a similar arrangement before
filing the motion, but EQT refused to stop trying to secure the
agreements -- evidence, Mr. Barrett said, that the company profits
from the contracts.  If they didn't, he questioned, why wouldn't
they just agree to stop for awhile?

Mr. West said the company will be filing their response to the
motion by a May 31 deadline.

A hearing is scheduled to argue the matter at 2:00 p.m. June 7
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent.


FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Court Approval of "Pionteck" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Frederick
County Bank is awaiting court approval of the settlement of a
class action lawsuit pending in Maryland, according to the
Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On July 30, 2010, the Bank was served with a lawsuit, Pionteck, v.
Frederick County Bank, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, alleging
noncompliance the ATM notice requirements of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.  The complaint, which purports to be a class action,
was filed on July 15, 2010.  If the class action proceeds and the
Bank is ultimately found to be liable, statutory damages from the
noncompliance could be up to 1% of the Bank's net worth,
approximately $270,000 at March 31, 2011.  The Bank has entered
into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff for an amount,
inclusive of plaintiff legal fees and costs, below the maximum
statutory damages.  The settlement agreement is subject to
approval by the court.  The Company's March 31, 2011 financial
statements reflect a reserve for litigation and settlement costs
that the Company believes will cover substantially all remaining
expense to be incurred in connection with this matter.  If the
settlement agreement is approved by the court, the Company
believes that it would not have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position.  There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be approved by the court on the proposed terms, or
that final settlement will not result in greater expense than that
anticipated.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: To Defend "Levy" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 2011, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
against Fushi Copperweld, Inc., and certain of its present and
former officers and directors in connection with the Company's
restatement of its consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010.  The action
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and is captioned as follows: Brian Levy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fushi
Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Wenbing Christopher Wang, Beihong Linda
Zhang, and Joseph J. Longever, Case No. 1:11-CV-03104-PGG.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between August 14, 2007 and
March 29, 2011.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company's
financial statements for the aforementioned periods contain
material misstatements and omissions, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company believes the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intends to defend
the litigation vigorously, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Remains Stayed by Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned LaMarca et al v. The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., remains stayed by the
bankruptcy filing of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company,
Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended February 26, 2011.

On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium, and
Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the
New York Labor Law.  Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca,
Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class
that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly
employees who were either required or permitted to work more than
40 hours per week. This matter has been stayed by the Company's
Bankruptcy Filing and is a claim that is subject to compromise.


GSI GROUP: Releases 993,743 Shares Under Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
GSI Group Inc. released 993,743 shares of its common stock to
entitled shareholders under the settlement agreement in the class
action lawsuit captioned Wiltold Trzeciakowski, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GSI Group Inc.,
Sergio Edelstein, and Robert Bowen, Case No. 08-cv-12065 (GAO),
according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2011.

On December 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its
results for the quarter ended September 26, 2008, and the
announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative
shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, a former officer and a then-
current officer and director -- Wiltold Trzeciakowski,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GSI
Group Inc., Sergio Edelstein, and Robert Bowen, Case No. 08-cv-
12065 (GAO). The complaint alleged that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought recovery of damages in an unspecified
amount. In May 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. The settlement covered purchasers of the
common stock of the Company between
February 27, 2007 and June 30, 2009.

On February 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement in the putative
shareholder class action. The Company's contribution to the
settlement amount was limited to the Company's self-insured
retention under its directors and officers liability insurance
policy.  As a result of the court's final approval of the
settlement, 993,743 shares of the Company's common stock that were
placed in a reserve account and held in escrow for the benefit of
the holders of Section 510(b) claims, as defined, were released to
its shareholders entitled to those shares.


INTERMUNE INC: Appeals From Actimmune Suits Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of class action lawsuits against
InterMune, Inc., related to its product Actimmune remain pending,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
C-08-02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged
that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits
of Actimmune for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted various
claims against the Company, including civil RICO, unfair
competition, violation of various state consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various
damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and
the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The
complaint also sought equitable relief. Between June 2008 and
September 2008, three additional complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging similar facts. In February 2009, the Court
consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.
The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard in February
2009. In April 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
complaints in all four cases in their entirety and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints. Following the initial
motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and on January 25, 2010, the Company and the other defendants each
filed motions to dismiss the most recently filed amended
complaints. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs
have filed an opposition to these motions. All these motions were
fully briefed as of March 8, and were heard on May 10, 2010. On
September 1, 2010, the Court issued an opinion dismissing all
remaining claims in all consolidated cases with prejudice and
entered judgment accordingly. On October 1, 2010, the remaining
plaintiffs in all cases filed notices of appeal, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Plaintiffs' opening briefs were filed on February 14,
2011. The Company and other defendants' filed their appellees'
briefs on April 7, 2011 and plaintiffs' optional reply briefs are
currently due May 13, 2011.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue and intends to defend the actions
vigorously. The Company may enter into discussions regarding
settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement
agreements, if the Company believes settlement is in the best
interests of the Company's stockholders. The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from these lawsuits.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Briefing Ongoing in Appeal From Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing by parties on the appeal from the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit against Intersections, Inc., is ongoing, according
to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Intersections Insurance Services
Inc., Loeb Holding Corp., Bank of America of America, NA, Banc of
America Insurance Services, Inc., American International Group,
Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and
Global Contact Services, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges various claims
based on telemarketing of an accidental death and disability
program. On February 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court dismissed
all of the plaintiff's claims against the Company and the other
defendants. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the briefing by the
parties is ongoing.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Investigating New Claims in Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections, Inc., is currently investigating new claims
asserted in an amended class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

On February 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and FIA
Card Services, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges various claims based
on the provision of identity protection services to the named
plaintiff. Defendants filed answers to the complaint on
May 24, 2010. On April 19, 2011, an amended complaint was filed.
In the amended complaint, the original named plaintiff was
withdrawn from the case, and three new plaintiffs were added. The
Company's response to the amended complaint is due on or about May
19, 2011. The Company currently is investigating the new claims.
The Company believes that it is too early to make a determination
of the likelihood of success in defeating the claims.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Citiline Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
istar Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against the
consolidated class action captioned Citiline Holdings, Inc., et
al. v. iStar Financial, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws. Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering.
The two complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding on
April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008.  The Complaint named
as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former
executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as
underwriters in the Company's Offering. The Complaint reasserted
claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege
the defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions
relating to the Company's continuing operations, including the
value of the Company's loan portfolio and certain debt securities
held by the Company. The Complaint seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees, and rescission of the public offering. No class
has been certified. The Company and its current and former
officers filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009
and, on March 26, 2010, the Court issued its order granting, in
part, the dismissal of certain Securities Act claims against
certain of the Company's current and former officers, but denying
the motion as to all claims asserted against the Company.
Accordingly, the discovery process has commenced. The Company
believes the Citiline Action has no merit and intends to continue
defending itself vigorously against it.


LAWSON AQUATICS: Recalls 11,940 Pool Drain Covers
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lawson Aquatics, of Naples, Florida, announced a voluntary recall
of about 11,940, 73 units of which were distributed.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The recalled drain covers were incorrectly rated to handle the
flow of water through the cover, which could pose a possible
entrapment hazard to swimmers and bathers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves various pool and spa drain covers that can be
identified by Lawson's name and model information on the cover.
The recall involves covers with model numbers: MLD-FGD-1818, MLD-
GOD-1818, MLD-SG-1818, FI-SG-181818, FI-SG-181824.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11740.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
independent distributors to professional pool and spa builders and
installers.

Pool owners/operators and consumers who have one of the recalled
pool or spa drain covers should immediately contact the
manufacturer to receive a replacement or retrofit, depending on
their drain cover make and model.  For more information, consumers
should contact Lawson Aquatics at (800) 897-6160 between 8:30 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Lawson Aquatics
is contacting its customers directly.


LLOYDS BANKING: Continues to Defend Interbank Offered Rates Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various regulators in the UK, US and overseas, including the US
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and the European Commission, are conducting
investigations into submissions made by panel members to the
bodies that set various interbank offered rates.  Lloyds Banking
Group plc and/or its subsidiaries were (at the relevant time), and
remain, members of various panels that submit data to these bodies
in a number of jurisdictions. The Group has received requests from
some regulators for information and is co-operating with their
investigations. In addition recently the Group has been named in
private purported class action suits in the US with regard to the
setting of London interbank offered rates (LIBOR) by members of
the LIBOR setting panel. It is currently not possible to predict
the scope and ultimate outcome of the various regulatory
investigations or purported private class action suits, including
the timing and scale of the potential impact of any investigations
and class action suits on the Group.

No further updates were reported in the Group's May 13, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


MASSEY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Various Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company continues to defend itself against various
class action lawsuits related to its merger with Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On January 28, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., and Mountain
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Alpha, providing
for the acquisition of Massey by Alpha.  Subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement, Massey will be merged with and
into Merger Sub, with Massey surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Alpha.

                    Derivative Litigation and
                Related Class Action Litigation

A number of purported stockholders have brought lawsuits
derivatively on behalf of Massey, in West Virginia and Delaware
state courts, in connection with the April 5, 2010, explosion at
the Upper Big Branch mine and related claims.  In addition, the
purported stockholders who brought lawsuits derivatively on behalf
of Massey in Delaware state court also now assert class claims
allegedly arising out of the proposed Merger between Massey and
Alpha.

On January 10, 2011, Helene Hutt, Sandy Taylor, NJBL. IUOE and
LAMPERS -- Delaware Plaintiffs -- filed a Verified Shareholder
Consolidated Derivative Complaint, alleging that certain current
and former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, which
failure allegedly resulted in fines against Massey and in the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Chairman
Blankenship as part of his retirement package.  The Delaware
Plaintiffs seek (1) an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; (2) removal of former Chairman Blankenship from his
position as a Company consultant; (3) an order establishing a
litigation trust to preserve the claims asserted in the complaint
in the event of a sale, merger, reorganization or any other
extraordinary transaction sufficient to eliminate the shareholder
plaintiffs' derivative standing to pursue those claims; and (4) an
award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees
incurred in this action.

On January 31, 2011, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend their Verified Shareholder Consolidated Derivative
Complaint, seeking leave to add factual allegations concerning the
terms of and process leading to the proposed merger between Massey
and Alpha -- Proposed Transaction -- and to add class action
claims challenging the board of directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, as well as
Alpha's, and Alpha's subsidiary created for the purposes of
effecting the transaction, Merger Sub alleged aiding and abetting
of those alleged breaches.

On February 4, 2011, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking a preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, a
permanent injunction following an expedited trial, enjoining the
defendants from consummating the Proposed Transaction and seeking
an order creating a litigation trust to preserve their derivative
claims in the event the Proposed Transaction was consummated.  In
connection with this motion, the Delaware Plaintiffs, also on
February 4, 2011, filed a motion for expedited proceedings.

On February 7, 2011, purported Massey stockholder Richard
Silverman filed, on behalf of a proposed class of Massey
stockholders, a verified class action complaint for breach of
fiduciary duty.  Silverman alleged that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and independence by
(1) failing to take steps to maximize the value of Massey to its
public stockholders and by taking steps to avoid competitive
bidding; (2) failing to properly value Massey; and (3) ignoring or
not protecting against alleged conflicts of interest resulting
from the directors' interrelationships or connection with the
Proposed Transaction.  Silverman also alleged that Alpha, Massey
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  Silverman requested that the court (1) declare
that the action is a class action and certify Silverman as the
class representative and his counsel as class counsel; (2) enjoin,
preliminary and permanently, the Proposed Transaction; (3) rescind
or award to Silverman and the proposed class recissory damages, in
the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated prior to the
entry of the court's final judgment; (4) direct defendants to
account to Silverman and the other members of the proposed class
for all damages caused by them and account for all profits and any
special benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their
fiduciary duties; and (5) award to Silverman the costs of the
action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses
of Silverman's attorneys and experts.

By order dated February 9, 2011, the court ordered that the
Silverman Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Delaware
Action.

On February 14, 2011, purported Massey stockholder Brian Goe
filed, on behalf of a class of Massey stockholders, a class action
complaint.  Goe alleged that the Massey directors violated their
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty in connection with the
Proposed Transaction by (1) failing to properly value the Company;
(2) failing to take steps to maximize the Company's value to its
public stockholders; and (3) agreeing to terms in the merger
agreement and other terms that favor Alpha and deter alternative
bids.  Goe also alleged that Alpha and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
Goe requested that the court (1) declare that the action is
properly maintainable as a class action; (2) enjoin defendants,
their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert
with them from consummating the Proposed Transaction with Alpha,
unless and until the Company adopts and implements a procedure or
process to obtain the highest possible price for stockholders; (3)
impose a constructive trust, in favor of Goe, upon any benefits
improperly received by defendants as a result of their wrongful
conduct; and (4) award to Goe the costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

By order dated February 24, 2011, the court ordered that the Goe
Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Delaware Action.

On February 25, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the Verified
Shareholder Consolidated Derivative Complaint.

On March 1, 2011, an office conference was held before the court
to discuss, among other things, the Delaware Plaintiffs' motions
to amend and expedite.  The court stated that it would grant the
Delaware Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and deny without
prejudice their motion to expedite.  The court further stated that
the Delaware Plaintiffs may commence discovery, including
depositions, with respect to the class claims raised in their
proposed second amended complaint.  Defendants' February 25 motion
to dismiss was deemed withdrawn in light of the court's grant of
leave to amend.  On March 9, 2011, the court entered the agreed
Order Implementing March 1, 2011 Rulings.

On March 11, 2011, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed their Verified
Shareholder Second Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint,
repeating the allegations contained in the Verified Shareholder
Consolidated Derivative Complaint, and further alleging that
Massey's directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Proposed Transaction to eliminate their potential liability on
the derivative claims asserted in the complaint and by failing to
secure the best price possible in the Proposed Transaction; by
failing to secure any downside protection -- in the form of a
"collar" -- for the merger consideration, which is primarily Alpha
stock; and by agreeing to deal protection provisions --
specifically, a "no shop" provision, matching rights and a
$251 million termination fee -- that allegedly virtually eliminate
the possibility of a proposal superior to Alpha's.  The Delaware
Plaintiffs further allege that Alpha and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an order (1) declaring that the
derivative counts of this action properly maintainable as a
derivative action; (2) declaring that the class action counts of
this action are properly maintainable as a class action; (3)
ordering each of the defendants to pay restitution and/or
compensatory damages in favor of Massey and/or in favor of the
class, plus pre-judgment interest; (4) removing Mr. Blankenship
from his consulting position; (5) enjoining the consummation of
the merger; (6) establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and (7) awarding
plaintiffs their costs and disbursements and reasonable allowances
for fees of plaintiffs' counsel and experts and reimbursement of
expenses.

On April 18, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the Verified
Shareholder Second Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint.

On April 19, 2011, the court set a hearing date of May 26, 2011
for the Delaware Plaintiffs' motion requesting that the court
preliminarily enjoin the Proposed Transaction.

The Company and the Defendants have insurance coverage applicable
to these matters.  The Company believes these matters will be
resolved without a material adverse impact on the Company's cash
flows, results of operations or financial condition.

                        Merger Litigation

Since the date of the announcement of the merger, in addition to
the Consolidated Delaware Litigation, actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
challenging the Merger.  The complaints, which the Company believe
are without merit and which the Company is challenging vigorously,
allege, among other things, that the Company's directors violated
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, that the
price to be paid for the Company by Alpha was too low and that the
Merger should not be consummated.

On February 2, 2011, purported Massey stockholder Benjamin Mostaed
filed, on behalf of a proposed class of Massey stockholders, a
complaint for breach of fiduciary duty in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Mostaed alleges that
Massey's directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
good faith, candor and independence by (1) failing to take steps
to maximize the value of Massey to its public stockholders and by
taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of the
Company's stock and to give the directors an unfair advantage, by,
among other things, failing to adequately solicit other potential
acquirers or alternative transactions; (2) failing to properly
value Massey and its various assets and operations; (3) ignoring
or not protecting against alleged conflicts of interest resulting
from the directors' interrelationships or connections with the
Merger; and (4) failing to disclose all material information to
the Company's stockholders necessary for them to make a fully
informed decision with respect to the Merger.  Mostaed also
alleges that Massey and Alpha aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Mostaed requests that the
court (1) declare that the action is properly maintainable as a
class action; (2) declare and decree that the Merger Agreement was
entered into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties and that
the Merger Agreement is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; (3)
enjoin defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all
persons acting in concert with them from consummating the Merger,
unless and until the Company adopts and implements a procedure or
process to obtain the highest possible value for stockholders; (4)
direct defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's
stockholders until the process for the sale or auction of the
Company is completed and the best possible consideration is
obtained for Massey; (5) rescind, to the extent already
implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof,
including the deal protection devices; and (6) award to plaintiff
the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 4, 2011, purported Massey stockholder William D.
Perkins filed, on behalf of a proposed class of Massey
stockholders, a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Perkins
alleges the same claims and seeks the same relief as the Mostaed
Action.

On February 17, 2011, Mostaed filed a motion for consolidation of
related cases, appointment of Johnson Bottini, LLP as lead
counsel, and appointment of Finkelstein Thompson LLP as liaison
counsel.  Mostaed requests that the court consolidate the Perkins
Action with the Mostaed Action, as well as any subsequently-filed
actions challenging the Merger.

On February 18, 2011, purported Massey stockholder Henry Mandel
filed, on behalf of a proposed class of Massey stockholders, a
complaint for breach of fiduciary duty in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Mandel alleges the same
claims and seeks the same relief as the Mostaed Action and the
Perkins Action.

On March 11, 2011, defendants moved to stay the Mostaed, Perkins
and Mandel Actions pending resolution of the Consolidated Delaware
Litigation.  On March 22, 2011, Perkins filed an opposition to
defendants' motion to stay.  On March 23, 2011, Mostaed filed a
motion for leave to file out of time a memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to stay, which motion was granted on March 30,
2011.  On March 30, 2011, Mostaed filed an opposition to
defendants' motion to stay.  Defendants filed reply memorandums in
further support of their motion to stay on
March 28 in the Mostaed and Perkins Actions.  Also on March 28,
defendants informed the court that Mandel had informed defendants
that he did not oppose defendants' motion to stay.

On April 4, 2011, Mostaed purported to file an Amended Complaint,
adding putative class action claims for alleged violations of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against Massey, Massey's
directors, and Alpha and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
Massey and its directors.  Mostaed seeks an order (1) declaring
that this action is properly maintainable as a class action; (2)
declaring and decreeing that the Merger Agreement was entered into
in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants is therefore
unlawful and unenforceable; (3) enjoining the consummation of the
Merger unless and until Massey adopts and implements a procedure
or process to obtain the highest possible value for stockholders;
(4) directing defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of the
Company's stockholders until the process for the sale or auction
of the Company is completed and the best possible consideration is
obtained for Massey; (5) rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof,
including the deal protection devices; and (6) awarding plaintiff
the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.  Defendants believe that the Amended
Complaint was not timely filed and, therefore, that Mostaed's
February 2, 2011 complaint remained the operative complaint.

On April 11, 2011, defendants filed an answer to Mostaed's
February 2, 2011 complaint.

On April 19, 2011, Mandel and defendants submitted an agreed
order, which, upon entry, will stay the Mandel Action pending
resolution of the Consolidated Delaware Action.

On April 28, 2011, Mostaed and defendants submitted an agreed
order, which, upon entry, will deem Mostaed's April 4, 2011
Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint and require that
defendants respond to it within 21 days from the date of the entry
of the agreed order.


MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the consolidated purported class action brought in
connection with alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On January 10, 2011, the court, pursuant to a Stipulation for
Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, and Approval of
Selection of Counsel filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Pension Reserves Investment Trust and David Wager, consolidated
the Macomb and Firefighters Actions for all purposes; appointed
Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust as Lead Plaintiff;
and approved the withdrawal of, or ordered the termination of as
moot, all pending motions related to consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff.

On February 2, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order
requiring plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated amended
complaint by March 11, 2011, and defendants to file and serve
responsive pleadings, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
consolidated amended complaint by April 25, 2011.

On February 16, 2011, plaintiffs moved to partially lift the
statutory discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  On March 3, 2011, the United
States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts
which allegedly gave rise to the action.  On March 7, 2011,
defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs' motion to partially
lift the PSLRA stay.  On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed a reply
memorandum in further support of their motion to partially lift
the PSLRA discovery stay and in opposition to the United States'
combined motions to intervene and to stay discovery.

On March 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
alleging that Massy and certain of its current and former
directors and officers had violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by intentionally misleading the market
about the safety of Massey's operations and that certain of
Massey's current and former officers had violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged
to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs seek (1) a determination that this action is a proper
class action and certification as class representatives under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) an award of
compensatory damages in favor of plaintiffs and the other class
members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an
amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and (3)
an award to plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees.

On April 15, 2011, the United States filed a reply memorandum in
support of its combined motions to intervene and to stay
discovery.  In its reply memorandum, the United States declared
that it and plaintiffs had reached an agreement regarding the
United States' motions to intervene and to stay discovery whereby,
if the court decides to lift the discovery stay imposed by the
PSLRA, the United States and plaintiffs request that the court
limit the discovery to be provided by Massey in certain respects,
as set forth in an attached proposed order granting plaintiffs'
motion to partially lift the PSLRA discovery stay.  On April 20,
2011, defendants filed an objection to the United States and
Plaintiffs' proposed order granting plaintiffs' motion to
partially lift the PSLRA discovery stay.  Plaintiffs' motion to
partially lift the PSLRA discovery stay is pending before the
court.

On April 25, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' oppositions to these
motions, if any, are due on June 9, 2011.

The Company and the Defendants have insurance coverage applicable
to these matters.  The Company believes these matters will be
resolved without a material adverse impact on the Company's cash
flows, results of operations or financial condition.


MASSEY ENERGY: Still Defends Age Discrimination Suit vs. Spartan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company continues to defend itself against the
Spartan Unfair Labor Practice Matter and Related Age
Discrimination Class Action, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In 2005, the UMWA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the
National Labor Relations Board alleging that one of the Company's
subsidiaries, Spartan Mining Company, discriminated on the basis
of anti-union animus in its employment offers.  The NLRB issued a
complaint and an NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a
recommended decision making detailed findings that Spartan
committed a number of unfair labor practice violations and
awarding, among other relief, back pay damages to union
discriminatees.  On September 30, 2009, the NLRB upheld the ALJ's
recommended decision.  Spartan has appealed the NLRB's decision to
the Fourth Circuit Court. The Company has no insurance coverage
applicable to this unfair labor practice matter; however, its
resolution is not expected to have a material impact on the
Company's cash flows, results of operations or financial
condition.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Suit in Texas Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against McDermott
International, Inc., that was pending in Texas is now concluded
after plaintiffs let the time to appeal the suit's dismissal
lapse, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008 and January 20, 2009, three
separate alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from February 27, 2008 through November 5, 2008 filed
purported class action complaints against MII, Bruce Wilkinson
(MII's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board),
and Michael S. Taff (MII's former Chief Financial Officer) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information and/or concealing material adverse
information relating to the operational and financial status of
three ongoing construction contracts for the installation of
pipelines off the coast of Qatar. Each complaint sought relief,
including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs
and expenses. The three cases were consolidated and transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. In May 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason
(JRMSA's former President and Chief Executive Officer) as a
defendant in the proceedings. In July 2009, MII and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
referred to a Magistrate Judge. In February 2010, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation on the motion,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief
under the securities laws and therefore recommended to the
District Court that the motion to dismiss be granted. On March 26,
2010, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations in full and dismissing the case. However, the
order granted the plaintiffs leave to request to amend their
complaint and, on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
with the District Court for leave to amend the complaint. The
defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion in May
2010, and in December 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation that plaintiffs' motion to amend be
denied and that the case be finally dismissed. In January 2011,
the plaintiffs filed their objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation, and the defendants filed their response to those
objections. Oral argument was held before the District Court on
February 15, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the District Court adopted
the Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed the case with
prejudice. The plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling and
accordingly the case is now concluded.


MEDIACOM BROADBAND: Discovery Continues in "Knight" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit against Mediacom
Broadband LLC's parent Mediacom Communications Corporation pending
in New York, according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

A purported class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which MCC is named as the defendant, was
filed on March 4, 2010. The complaint asserts that the potential
class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable
services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed by MCC. The
plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "ties" the rental of cable
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiff also alleges
a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages. MCC was served with the complaint on April
16, 2010. MCC believes they have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in the complaint, and they intend to defend the
action vigorously. MCC filed a Motion to Dismiss the action and
the court recently ruled adversely to MCC. The case is now in the
discovery/trial phase. If MCC is not successful in this
litigation, the Company may have to distribute cash to MCC in
order for MCC to pay any damages in regard to this litigation.


MEDIACOM BROADBAND: Court to Hear Merger-Related Suit MOU June 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court date has been set for June 6, 2011 to review the terms and
conditions of the settlement of a class action lawsuits related to
Mediacom Communications Corporation's going private transaction,
according to Mediacom Broadband LLC's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 12, 2010, Mediacom Communications Corporation entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among MCC, JMC
Communications LLC, and Rocco B. Commisso, MCC's founder, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, who was also the sole member and
manager of JMC, for the purpose of taking MCC private.  At a
special meeting of stockholders on March 4, 2011, MCC's
stockholders voted to adopt the Merger Agreement. On the same
date, JMC was merged with and into MCC, with MCC continuing as the
surviving corporation, a private company that is wholly-owned by
Mr. Commisso.

Between June 3, 2010, and June 10, 2010, three purported class
actions lawsuits were filed against Mediacom and its individual
directors, including Rocco B. Commisso, Mediacom Communications
Corp.'s founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, all in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, under the captions
Colleen Witmer v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al., J.
Malcolm Gray v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al. and
Haverhill Retirement System v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al. The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated
for all purposes in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the
caption In Re Mediacom Communications Corporation Shareholders
Litigation. On January 4, 2011, a Second Verified Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed that alleges, among other
things, that the defendant directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr.
Commisso's proposal to take Mediacom private, including among
other things their fiduciary duty of disclosure, and that
Mediacom, Mr. Commisso and JMC Communications LLC aided and
abetted such breaches. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, and an
accounting of all damages.

On November 18, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange
County, under the caption Wendy Kwait v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr. Commisso's
proposal to take Mediacom private and that Mediacom and Mr.
Commisso aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory
damages.

On November 29, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Thomas Turberg v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Mediacom in connection
with Mr. Commisso's proposal to take Mediacom private and that
Mediacom and JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such
breaches. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages.

On December 10, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Mediacom and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Ella Mae Pease v. Rocco
Commisso, et al. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Mediacom in connection with Mr. Commisso's
proposal to take Mediacom private; that Mediacom, Mr. Commisso and
JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such breaches; and that
the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory
damages, and an accounting of all damages, profits and special
benefits.

The director defendants, Mediacom, JMC Communications LLC and Mr.
Commisso, as defendants, have reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in all of the actions providing for the
settlement of the actions on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding, which terms
include, but are not limited to, a settlement payment made by
Mediacom on behalf of and for the benefit of the parties to the
actions in the amount of $0.25 per share for each share of
Mediacom common stock held by the plaintiff class as of March 4,
2011. If the settlement becomes effective, the settlement payment
to the plaintiff class will be reduced by any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement is subject
to, among other things, the execution of definitive settlement
documentation and the approval of the Delaware Court. A court date
has been set for June 6, 2011 to review the terms and conditions
of settlement in the MOU.  The Company may have to distribute cash
to MCC to partially fund this settlement. Upon effectiveness of
the settlement, the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and
all claims under federal and state law that were or could have
been asserted in the actions or which arise out of or relate to
the Going Private Transaction will be released.

The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events and transactions
complained of in the aforementioned actions or that they have
engaged in any wrongdoing. The defendants have entered into the
MOU to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and
distraction of further litigation.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Preliminary Injunction Denied in "Pittman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2011, a hearing was held in connection with the case
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery brought against
MoneyGram International, Inc., by Willie R. Pittman et al.  At the
hearing, the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was
denied, according to the Company's May 17, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, on April 15,
2011, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware by Willie R. Pittman purporting to be a class action
complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a shareholder
derivative complaint against MoneyGram International, Inc., Thomas
H. Lee Partners, L.P., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and each of
the Company's directors.  Ms. Pittman alleges in her complaint
that she is a stockholder of the Company and asserts, among other
things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure claims against
the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs,
(ii) breach of the Company's certificate of incorporation claims
against the Company, THL and Goldman Sachs, and (iii) claims for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Goldman
Sachs.  Ms. Pittman purports to sue on her own behalf and on
behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Pittman seeks to,
among other things, enjoin or rescind the proposed
recapitalization of the Company, pursuant to which, among
other things, subject to the terms and conditions in the
recapitalization agreement, certain affiliates and co-investors of
THL will convert all of their shares of Series B Preferred Stock
of the Company into common stock of the Company and certain
affiliates of Goldman Sachs will convert all of their shares of
Series B-1 Preferred Stock of the Company into shares of Series D
Preferred Stock of the Company.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Kramer" Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2011, a complaint was filed in the County Court at Law
No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas by Hilary Kramer purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against MoneyGram International,
Inc., Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
and each of the Company's directors. Ms. Kramer alleges in her
complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and asserts,
among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs and (ii) claims for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Goldman
Sachs. Ms. Kramer purports to sue on her own behalf and on behalf
of the Company and its stockholders. Ms. Kramer seeks to, among
other things, enjoin the proposed recapitalization of the Company,
pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the terms and
conditions in the recapitalization agreement, certain affiliates
and co-investors of THL will convert all of their shares of Series
B Preferred Stock of the Company into common stock of the Company
and certain affiliates of Goldman Sachs will convert all of their
shares of Series B-1 Preferred Stock of the Company into shares of
Series D Preferred Stock of the Company. The Company intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously, including opposing any request to
enjoin the recapitalization, according to its May 17, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


MOTOROLA INC: 401(k)Plan Not Entitled to Share in Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a
district court order disallowing the Motorola 401(k) Profit-
Sharing Plan's claim to a share of the Motorola class settlement
proceeds in the case styled In re Motorola Securities Litigation.

The 401K Plan is a defined-contribution retirement plan, and its
participants are current and former Motorola employees who
established individual retirement accounts with the Plan.

The securities class action suit was brought by purchasers of
Motorola Inc. common stock in 2003 against Motorola and its
officers.  The securities-fraud action was later settled for
$190 million.  Before the settlement proceeds were distributed,
the 401K Plan submitted a claim to share in the settlement.  The
district court denied the 401K Plan's claim based on two separate
holdings.  It held that the Plan was excluded from the class
because (1) the participants did not purchase publicly Motorola
common stock, and (2) the Plan was a Motorola affiliate.  The Plan
appealed the district court ruling.

The Appellate Court panel, composed of Circuit Judges Diane S.
Sykes and Terence T. Evans, and Honorable Philip P. Simon of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, sitting
by designation, affirm the district court decision, although on
somewhat different reasoning.

The Appellate Court disagrees that the Plan is excluded from the
class because the participants did not themselves purchase
Motorola common stock.  It is true that the Plan's participants
purchased units of the Motorola Stock Fund, not Motorola common
stock, but the claim was filed by the Plan; and it is undisputed
that the Plan regularly purchased publicly traded Motorola
common stock on the open market, Judge Sykes notes.

The Appellate Court agrees, however, that the Plan is an affiliate
of Motorola and on this basis is excluded from the class, although
the 7th Circuit arrived at this conclusion by a slightly different
analysis.  The district court applied the ordinary meaning of the
term "affiliate," but the Appellate Court thinks the term must be
understood in light of the specialized context in which it is used
in the case.

"This is a securities-fraud case, and under federal securities
law, an 'affiliate' is defined by reference to control; one who
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with an
issuer of a security is an affiliate.  Motorola appoints the
Plan's administrator -- the Motorola 401(k) Profit-Sharing
Committee -- and the members of this Committee serve at the
pleasure of Motorola's Board of Directors.  This structural
organizational control is sufficient to render the Plan an
affiliate of Motorola," the Appellate Court holds.  Accordingly,
the Plan is excluded from the class definition, and the district
court properly denied its claim to a share of the settlement
proceeds, the Appellate Court rules.

A copy of the 7th Circuit's May 4, 2011, opinion is available at
http://is.gd/YfqGx3from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against the deferred annuities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The case is titled In Re
National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation.
The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq., Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq., Breach of
the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.  On July 12, 2010, the Court
certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO
allegation and a California class under all of the remaining
causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty.  The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses in this cause and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims.
Therefore, no amounts have been provided in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company as of March 31, 2011 for this
matter.


NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Sued Over Illegal Marketing Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action accuses
North American Company for Life and Health Insurance of defrauding
the elderly with illegal business and marketing tactics to
unjustly enrich itself and its sales agents.

A copy of the Complaint in Chambers v. North American Company for
Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 11-cv-03528 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/26/HealthRICO.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Timothy P. Mahoney, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  timm@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274 -1100
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


PARAMOUNT POOL: Recalls 30 Drain Covers Due to Incorrect Rating
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Paramount Pool & Spa Systems, of Chandler, Arizona, announced a
voluntary recall of 30 units of MDX pool and spa drain covers
distributed in the U.S. with an estimated 25 already installed.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled drain covers were incorrectly rated to handle the
flow of water through the cover, which could pose a possible
entrapment hazard to swimmers and bathers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves one pool and spa drain cover, Model MDX, (sold
after 12/18/2008).  Markings on the cover will indicate MDX logo,
a maximum flow rating of 64 GPM, ASME A112.19.8 - 2007, VGB 2008
and include the USPC Shield.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11739.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold through professional pool and spa builders and
installers.

Pool owners/operators and consumers who have one of the recalled
pool or spa drain covers should immediately contact Paramount to
receive a replacement cover.  For more information, contact
Paramount Pool & Spa Systems at (800) 621-5886 between 6:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday.  The firm is
contacting its customers directly.


POOL DRAIN COVER MAKERS: Recall 1-Mil. Pool and Spa Drain Covers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
A&A Manufacturing, of Phoenix, Arizona; AquaStar Pool Products
Inc., of San Diego, California; Color Match Pool Fittings, of
Surprise, Arizona; Custom Molded Products, of Tyrone, Georgia;
Hayward Pool Products, of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Pentair Water
Pool and Spa, of Sanford, North Carolina; Rising Dragon USA, of E.
Sweetwater, Tennessee; and Waterway Plastics, of Oxnard,
California, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000,000 pool
and spa drain covers.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled drain covers were incorrectly rated to handle the
flow of water through the cover, which could pose a possible
entrapment hazard to swimmers and bathers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves various pool and spa drain covers that can be
identified by the manufacturers' name and model information
listed:

Company               Dates Sold              Remedy
-------               ----------              ------
A&A             Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Model Info (Web site): http://www.aamfg.com

AquaStar        Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Model Info (Web site): http://www.aquastarpoolproducts.com

Color Match     Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Model Info (Web site): http://www.poolfittings.com

Custom Molded   Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Products
Model Info (Web site): http://www.c-m-p.com

Hayward Pool    Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Products
Model Info (Web site): http://www.hayward-pool.com

Pentair Water   June 2009 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Pool & Spa
Model Info (Web site): http://www.pentairpool.com

Rising Dragon   Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Model Info (Web site): http://www.risingdragonplastics.com

Waterway        Dec. 2008 - Apr. 2011   Replacement or Retrofit
Model Info (Web site): http://www.waterwayplastics.com

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11230.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and China, and sold through independent distributors to
professional pool and spa builders and installers.

Pool owners/operators and consumers who have one of the recalled
pool or spa drain covers should immediately contact the
manufacturer to receive a replacement or retrofit, depending on
their make and model.  Except for kiddie pools, wading pools and
in-ground spas, retrofit or replacement of installed covers are
not required in pools with multiple drain systems or gravity
drainage systems or for covers installed before December 19, 2008.

For additional information, consumers should contact the Drain
Cover Recall Hotline toll-free at (866) 478-3521 any time, or
visit the Drain Cover Recall Web site at
http://www.apsp.org/draincoverrecall/. Consumers with drain
covers from Waterway Plastics should contact the firm toll-free at
(866) 719-6044 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, or visit
the manufacturer's Web site at http://www.waterwayplastics.com/


RAE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Calif. & Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits related to its merger agreement with an affiliate of
Vector Capital, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On September 19, 2010, the Company signed a definitive agreement
to be acquired by an affiliate of Battery Ventures for $1.60 in
cash per share (other than certain shares held by the Company's
founders, Robert Chen, Peter Hsi and affiliated entities).
Subsequently, on January 12, 2011, the Company received an offer
from an affiliate of Vector Capital to acquire the outstanding
shares of its common stock for $1.75 per share in cash (other than
certain shares held by Robert Chen, Peter Hsi and affiliated
entities). The Company terminated the Battery Merger Agreement on
January 18, 2011, paid a termination fee of $3.39 million to
Battery Ventures in accordance with the terms of the Battery
Merger Agreement, and signed a Merger Agreement with the affiliate
of Vector Capital. On April 2, 2011, the Company received an offer
from an affiliate of Battery Ventures to acquire all of its
outstanding capital stock for $1.90 per share in cash, and on
April 3, 2011, the Company entered into an amendment to the Vector
Merger Agreement increasing the per share cash price to be paid
for the outstanding shares of its common stock (other than certain
shares held by Robert Chen, Peter Hsi and affiliated entities) to
$1.88. This transaction is subject to customary closing
conditions, including the approval of RAE Systems' shareholders.

In connection with the acquisition agreements, eleven lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and members of its Board of
Directors. These suits were filed in State Courts in California
and Delaware and in the Federal District Court in California. In
summary, the suits allege violations of federal securities laws
and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by conducting an unfair sales process and agreeing to an unfair
price, are receiving improper personal benefits, and were aided
and abetted by the other defendants. The Company believes the
claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them. However, there can be no
assurances as to the outcome of the litigation.

                  California State Court Actions

On September 20, 2010, a putative class action suit, entitled
Foley v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., No. 110CV182985, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against
the Company, members of its Board of Directors, the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, and entities affiliated with Battery
Ventures. The suit alleges in summary that, in connection with a
proposed acquisition of the Company by an affiliate of Battery
Ventures, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an
unfair price, would purportedly receive improper personal benefits
in connection with the proposed acquisition, and were aided and
abetted by the other defendants. Plaintiff seeks, among other
things, a declaration that the suit can be maintained as a class
action, an injunction against the proposed merger, rescission of
the Merger Agreement, a directive that the defendants exercise
their fiduciary duties to implement a process to secure the best
possible consideration for stockholders, imposition of a
constructive trust on allegedly improper benefits, and fees and
costs. Four other lawsuits making similar allegations have also
been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara against the Company, its Board of Directors
and Battery Ventures or its affiliates: Angles v. RAE Systems
Inc., et al., No. 110CV183606; Greenbaum v. Chen, et al., No.
110CV183814; AC Photonics, Inc. v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., No.
110CV183942; and Mann v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., No.
110CV183960. On October 28, 2010 the California court consolidated
all five California actions under the caption In re RAE Systems,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 110CV182985. On
December 15, 2010, plaintiffs Mann and Angles filed an amended
complaint asserting the same claims and including additional
disclosure claims based on allegations that the Company's proxy
filings contain materially false statements and fail to disclose
material facts regarding, among other things, the Special
Committee, the holders of the Rollover Shares, the process and
events leading up to the proposed acquisition, the FCPA
investigation, communications with Battery Ventures and other
potential bidders, and the work performed by UBS and data
underlying its analyses. On December 17, 2010, the California
court issued an order staying all proceedings in California state
court in favor of litigation pending in Delaware.

                 Delaware Chancery Court Actions

In addition to the California state court actions, four putative
class action suits with similar allegations have been filed in
Delaware Chancery Court: Nelson v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 5848-VCS; Venton v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5854-
VCS; Quintanilla v. RAE Systems Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5872;
Villeneuve v. RAE Systems Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5877. The
Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
RAE Systems, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
5848-VCS, and plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on or about October 28, 2010. In this
pleading, plaintiffs continued to assert the same claims, and in
addition they alleged that the Company's Preliminary Proxy
Statement, filed with the SEC on October 21, 2010, contained
materially false statements or failed to disclose material facts
regarding, among other things, the Special Committee, the holders
of the Rollover Shares, the process and events leading up to the
proposed acquisition, the FCPA investigation, communications with
Battery Ventures and other potential bidders, and the work
performed by UBS and data underlying its analyses. Plaintiffs
requested various forms of injunctive relief, as well as money
damages allegedly suffered or to be suffered by the putative
class. On December 17, 2010, two of the plaintiffs from the stayed
California action (Mann and Angles) also filed a complaint in
Delaware Chancery Court making essentially the same allegations as
in their amended California complaint.  Plaintiffs Mann and Angles
subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Delaware complaint.

On February 24, 2011, the remaining Delaware plaintiffs filed a
motion requesting leave to file a Supplemental and Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint. The Delaware Chancery Court
granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint on March 2,
2011. The Supplemental Amended Verified Class Action Complaint
asserts claims against the Company, members of its Board of
Directors, and entities affiliated with Vector Capital, and
alleges in summary that, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the Company by an affiliate of Vector Capital, the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair price,
are purportedly receiving improper personal benefits, and were
aided and abetted by the other defendants. The complaint also
alleges that the Company's Preliminary Proxy Statement, filed with
the SEC on February 22, 2011, contains materially false statements
or fails to disclose material facts regarding, among other things,
the Special Committee, the holders of the Rollover Shares, the
process and events leading up to the proposed acquisition, the
work performed by UBS and data underlying its analyses, and
communications with Battery Ventures, Vector Capital, and other
potential bidders. Plaintiffs request various forms of injunctive
relief, as well as money damages allegedly suffered or to be
suffered by the putative class. On March 7, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin the
proposed acquisition of the Company by an affiliate of Vector
Capital. On April 4, 2011, the Delaware Chancery Court held a
conference regarding the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction. Following that conference, the Company
postponed the shareholder vote on the proposed acquisition.

                    Federal Court Actions

Two other actions have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company,
members of its Board of Directors, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, and/or Battery Ventures, Rudy Merger Sub Corp. and Rudy
Acquisition Corp. Those actions are entitled LaPlante v. RAE
Systems Inc., et al., No. CV104944 and Mabry v. Chen, et al., No.
CV 10-5328. They make allegations similar to the other lawsuits,
and add claims for alleged violation of the federal securities
laws in connection with the preparation of the proxy statement
filed by the Company in connection with a proposed acquisition by
affiliates of Battery Ventures. On January 10, 2011, the federal
court issued an order pursuant to a stipulation of the parties
staying proceedings in the LaPlante action in favor of litigation
pending in Delaware. A similar order was entered by the federal
court in the Mabry action on January 21, 2011, pursuant to
stipulation of the parties.


SINO CLEAN: Defends "Redwen" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 2011, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
against Sino Clean Energy, Inc., and certain of its present and
former officers and directors for alleged violations of federal
securities laws.  The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff claims that the
Company's SEC filings during the period between April 6, 2009, and
May 5, 2011, contain materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's revenues and operations.  The action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and is styled, Plaintiff Gary Redwen v.
Sino Clean Energy, Inc., Baowen Ren, Wen Fu, Albert Ching-Hwa Pu,
Hon Wan Chan, Wenjie Zhang, Zhixin Jing, and Peng Zhou, Case No.
CV11-03936.

The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaint and believes they are without merit. The Company intends
to defend the litigation vigorously. As such, based on the
information known to the Company to date, it does not believe that
it is probable that a material judgment against the Company will
result and no liability has been accrued, according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.


SPARK NETWORKS: L.I.S.T. Suit Over Great Hill Proposal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned L.I.S.T. Incorporated v. Spark
Networks, Inc. et al., was dismissed by plaintiff without
prejudice on March 4, 2011, according to Spark Networks, Inc.'s
May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On March 11, 2010, L.I.S.T. Incorporated initiated a class action
lawsuit against Spark Networks, Inc., Adam S. Berger, Jonathan B.
Bulkeley, Benjamin Derhy, Thomas G. Stockham, Michael A. Kumin,
Great Hill Equity Partners III, LP and Great Hill Partners, LLC in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty. The action arises out of the proposal by Great
Hill Partners III, LP to purchase all of the shares of Spark
Networks, Inc., that it does not already own.  On
September 10, 2010, the Company announced that the Board of
Directors had disbanded the Special Committee of independent
directors which had been formed to consider the proposal made by
Great Hill to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of the Company not owned by Great Hill and other strategic
alternatives available to the Company. The action initiated by
L.I.S.T. was dismissed by plaintiff without prejudice on March 4,
2011.


ST. IVES LABS: Sued Over False Cellulite Shield Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
filed in California claims Alberto Culver and St. Ives
Laboratories push St. Ives Cellulite Shield products with false
claims.


STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, Stamps.com Inc. was named, together with certain of the
Company's current and former board members and/or officers, as a
defendant in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and a secondary offering of the Company's
common stock. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation,
including interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees). In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this
action, which does not require the Company to make any payments.
The court approval has been appealed.

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


TIPPECANOE, IN: Jail Faces Class Action Over Grievance Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Voravong, writing for Journal and Courier, reports that two
lawsuits currently are pending against Tippecanoe County Jail:

    * Former inmate Jeffrey M. Olson is seeking a class-action
certification for his civil lawsuit alleging that jail staff
repeatedly violated his civil rights.

Mr. Olson claims that his legal work for an unrelated civil
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kentucky was taken and placed in
storage.  He further argues that the jail improperly handled and
delayed responses to complaints under its grievance policy.

The lawsuit is filed in U.S. District Court.  Mr. Olson's
attorney, Gavin Rose, Esq. with the American Civil Liberties Union
of Indiana, said he is expecting a response soon to various
motions, including the class action request.

Attorney Doug Masson, Esq., who is representing Tippecanoe County
Jail and Sheriff Tracy Brown, said is he waiting for a judge to
rule on his motion to dismiss the complaint -- which was
previously done, then reversed on appeal.

When the lawsuit was filed in February 2009, Mr. Olson was serving
a 10-year prison sentence for fraud on a financial institution and
being a habitual offender.  He was transferred to the Indiana
Department of Correction shortly after.

    * Randy Wethington of Lafayette is suing the sheriff, the
jail's contracted doctor and three jail nurses.  The lawsuit
claims that Mr. Wethington was given only two of his seven
medications during an 11-day stay at Tippecanoe County Jail in
April 2010.

According to his lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court,
Mr. Wethington has high blood pressure, thyroid imbalance,
emphysema and arthritis, among other health problems.  He also
suffers from dry mouth due to his saliva glands being removed when
treated for oral cancer.

He claimed to have been allowed use of his inhaler only once,
though it's necessary daily, and that the jail refuses to dispense
narcotics or mood stabilizers, regardless of medical necessity.

Mr. Wethington filed his complaint last October, and it was
amended earlier this month.

No trial dates have been set.  Mr. Masson said attorneys in the
case have discovery deadlines for later this year and early 2012.

Mr. Wethington is being represented by an Indianapolis law firm.


WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls 50,850 Pool Drain Covers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Waterway Plastics, of Oxnard, California, announced a voluntary
recall 50,850 pool drain covers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The recalled drain covers were incorrectly rated to handle the
flow of water through the cover, which could pose a possible
entrapment hazard to swimmers and bathers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the pool and spa drain covers models listed.
The covers vary in size and shape, but bear model number and
manufacturer name molded on the drain cover:

   * Model 640-81XX V, 8" Ultra Round
   * Model 640-311X, 10" Round
   * Model 640-470X V, 9" x 9" Grate and Frame
   * Model 640-475X V, 18" x 18" Grate and Frame

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11231.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold through independent distributors, who sold the
products nationwide directly to professional builders/installers.
The products are not sold directly to consumers.

Consumers who believe they have one of these drain covers in their
pool or spa should contact the manufacturer to determine whether a
replacement or retrofit is required.  Except for kiddie pools,
wading pools and in-ground spas, retrofit or replacement of
installed covers are not required in pools with multiple drain
systems or gravity drainage systems or for covers installed before
December 19, 2008.

For additional information, contact the Waterway Plastics toll-
free at (866) 719-6044 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the manufacturer's Web site
at http://www.waterwayplastics.com/


WHITNEY HOLDING: Parties in Merger-Related Suits Reach Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to class action lawsuits challenging the merger between
Whitney Holding Corporation and Hancock Holding Company have
reached a settlement in principle, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 22, 2010, Whitney and Hancock Holding Company
announced a strategic business combination in which Whitney will
merge with and into Hancock.  If the merger is completed, holders
of Whitney common stock will receive 0.418 of a share of Hancock
common stock in exchange for each share of Whitney common stock
held immediately prior to the merger, subject to the payment of
cash in lieu of fractional shares.  On April 29, 2011, the
shareholders of both Whitney and Hancock voted to approve the
merger agreement.  Consummation of the merger is contingent upon
regulatory approvals and other closing conditions.

On January 7, 2011, a purported shareholder of Whitney filed a
lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans of
the State of Louisiana captioned De LaPouyade v. Whitney Holding
Corporation, et al., No. 11-189, naming Whitney and members of
Whitney's board of directors as defendants.  This lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Whitney's
common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action.  The lawsuit alleges that
Whitney's directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or
violated Louisiana state law and that Whitney aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by, among other things,
(a) agreeing to consideration that undervalues Whitney, (b)
agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales
process, (c) engaging in self-dealing, and (d) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest. Among other relief, the plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the merger. The parties have reached a settlement
in principle.

On February 17, 2011, a complaint in intervention was filed by the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System ("MPERS")
in the De LaPouyade case.  The MPERS complaint is substantially
identical to and seeks to join in the De LaPouyade complaint. The
parties have reached a settlement in principle.

On February 7, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Realistic Partners v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00256, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Whitney, members of Whitney's board of directors, and Hancock
asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty under Louisiana state law,
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty by, among other
things, (a) making material misstatements or omissions in the
proxy statement, (b) agreeing to consideration that undervalues
Whitney, (c) agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a
fair sales process, (d) engaging in self-dealing, and (e) failing
to protect against conflicts of interest. Among other relief, the
plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.  On February 24, 2011, the
plaintiff moved for class certification.  The parties have reached
a settlement in principle.

On April 11, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Jane Doe v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:11-cv-00794-ILRL-JCW, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Whitney,
members of Whitney's board of directors, and the defendants'
insurance carrier asserting breach of fiduciary duty under
Louisiana state law by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
consideration that undervalues Whitney, (b) agreeing to deal
protection devices that preclude a fair sales process, (c)
engaging in self-dealing, and (d) failing to protect against
conflicts of interest.  Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the merger.  On April 20, 2011, this case was consolidated
with the Realistic Partners case.  The parties have reached a
settlement in principle.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Awaits Court Okay of FCRA Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2009, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., was served with a
putative class action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations
of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the Company's
background check procedures. The Company denied all allegations
raised in the lawsuit, answered the complaint, and filed motions
asserting various defenses to the claims. On October 21, 2010, the
parties reached a mutually agreed upon resolution of the case. The
resolution of this claim will not result in a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 16, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 6, 2011.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Sets July 6, 2012 Trial Date in 401(k) Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new trial date, July 6, 2012, has been set in the consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging ERISA violations against YRC
Worldwide Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, based on
similar allegations and causes of action. On
November 17, 2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Plan,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from April 6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain
persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the
plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on January 15, 2010,
Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the merged 401(k) plans,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from March 23, 2006 to the present; and on
April 21, 2010, Tawana Franklin, a participant in YRC Worldwide
401(k) Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain
persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the
plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present.

In general, the complaints allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition. Although some
Company matching contributions were made in Company common stock,
participants were not permitted to invest their own contributions
in the Company stock fund. The complaints allege that the
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the plans and
assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company common stock;
failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with accurate
information; breached the duty to properly appoint, monitor, and
inform the Benefits Administrative Committee; misrepresented and
failed to disclose adverse financial information; breached the
duty to avoid conflict of interest; and are subject to co-
fiduciary liability. Each of the complaints seeks, among other
things, an order compelling defendants to make good to the plan
all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,
attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and equitable relief. Based
on the four separate complaints previously filed, the Company
believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the claims.
On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but names as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current officers and directors that have already been named.
The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated with the first three
cases on May 12, 2010.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June
1, 2010. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to the claim that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by misrepresenting or failing to disclose information to
plan participants but refused to dismiss the remainder of the
plaintiffs' claims.

On April 6, 2011, the court certified a class consisting of all
401(k) Plan participants or beneficiaries who held YRCW stock in
their accounts between October 25, 2007 and the present. The
parties recently agreed to a four-month extension of all
deadlines. The new discovery deadline is August 1, 2011,
dispositive motions are due March 5, 2012 and the new trial date
is July 6, 2012.

The ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable. Therefore,
the Company has not recorded any liability for this matter.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Co-Lead Plaintiffs Stipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a stipulation
requesting appointment of co-lead plaintiffs in a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the Company's May
10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the Company and certain of its officers failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's true financial
condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and overstated the
financial condition of the Company and caused shares of the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period. Bryant Holdings LLC seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during the Class Period. The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims. On
April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and a group of
investors (including Bryant Holdings LLC) filed competing motions
seeking to be named the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  On May 6,
2011, the parties attempting to be named lead plaintiff filed a
stipulation requesting that the Court appoint them as co-lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The parties have agreed that the
Company will not be required to file an answer or other responsive
pleading until such time as the Court has named the lead plaintiff
and the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

The ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable. Therefore,
the Company has not recorded any liability for this matter.


* Plaintiffs' Lawyers Abuse Class Action Reforms
------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rickard, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that recent class action reforms, such as the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, have helped the class action system in some
ways.  But the process continues to be severely abused by elements
of the plaintiffs' trial bar, who use the class action legal
mechanism to join together large and diverse groups of claimants
as a means of extracting huge settlements or court awards from
defendants.  For this reason, the courts should continue to
monitor these suits closely and watch for abuses.

The largest class action in history, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, highlights
some of the potential abuses that still exist in the class action
system.  The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether the
Ninth Circuit appropriately permitted six female employees of Wal-
Mart, each claiming separate and unrelated instances of alleged
sex discrimination, to represent 1.5 million other employees -
even though they really had no commonality between them.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the facts and law were common enough
among the 1.5 million potential class members to justify having
the suit proceed as a class action -- a decision that, if allowed
to stand, would deny Wal-Mart the ability to prove that many, if
not all, of the 1.5 million class members never actually suffered
discrimination, exposing the company to potentially billions of
dollars in damages.  This amenability by some courts to a loose
interpretation of what constitutes a class opens up incredible
uncertainty and risk to businesses across America.

The unfortunate continuing irony, however, is that in many class
actions, particularly those that go on in state courts, the
plaintiffs are not the real winners in the case.  A number of
high-profile cases continue to result in class members "winning"
coupons worth maybe a few dollars while the lawyers walk-away with
millions.

This phenomenon is highlighted in a proposed class action
settlement in a case involving DirectBuy Inc. where the attorneys
stand to receive up to $1 million while the 836,000 plaintiffs in
the class will receive a two-month extension in their membership
with the option to purchase a renewal.  Thirty-four state
attorneys general opposing the settlement are calling it a
worthless coupon that offers no real benefit to consumers.
Unfortunately, this outcome is all too common.

While the Class Action Fairness Act was designed to limit these
types of abuses that often hurt businesses and don't benefit
consumers, the courts need to continue to police them so that
justice is served and plaintiff's lawyers are not the only
winners.


* Supreme Court SPD Ruling Impacts ERISA Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Josh Norris, writing for Employee Benefit News, reports that on
May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court clarified how much harm a
participant must demonstrate in order to win damages on a lawsuit
involving a Summary Plan Description -- SPD -- that conflicts with
the terms of its underlying plan document.

The Supreme Court explained that the requisite level of harm for a
particular case will be dependent upon the applicable equitable
theory of relief.  If a plaintiff can satisfy one of the
standards, it may then be rebutted by the defendant, if the
defendant can demonstrate that the inconsistency was a harmless
error.

Prior to the May 19 decision, the U.S. courts of appeals had been
divided on the issue of the applicable standard where an SPD
conflicts with the terms of a plan document.  While the 1st, 4th,
7th, 8th, 10th and 11th Circuits all required a plan participant
to demonstrate some degree of reliance or prejudice on the
conflicting documents in order for the plan participant to
recover, the 3rd, 5th, and 6th allowed a plan beneficiary to
recover where there was a clear and material conflict between the
SPD and the plan, regardless of whether the beneficiary could
demonstrate reliance on the SPD or prejudice of the conflict.

Background

A traditional defined benefit plan provides an eligible employee
with an annuity (an annual benefit payable for the life of the
employee) that is calculated as a percentage of the employee's
salary multiplied by the employee's years of service.

"Salary" may be defined in a variety of ways, including the
employee's salary over the last several years of service or an
average of an employee's three highest year's salary.  By design,
participants in traditional defined benefit plans typically earn
most of their benefits in the last several years of service.  Also
by design, the employer bears the risk of fluctuations in interest
rates or the market over the life of the retired employee.

In contrast to traditional defined benefit plans, defined
contribution plans, such as 401(k) plans, do not offer fixed
assurances of annual benefit for life upon retirement.  Instead,
the employer and/or employee contributes a certain amount (for
example, 5% of each year's salary) to the plan each year.  Each
plan participant is entitled (depending on a plan's vesting
schedule) to the money allocated to a separate individual
retirement account, plus the upside of favorable investment
returns.  Under a defined contribution arrangement, the plan
participant bears the risk of fluctuations in interest rates or
the market once contributions are made to the participant's
account.

A cash balance plan is a sort of hybrid of a defined benefit plan
and a defined contribution plan, borrowing characteristics from
each design.  Cash balance plans have individual accounts and
allocations (like defined contribution plans), but the employer
bears the risk of fluctuations in interest rates and the market
(like defined benefit plans).  The design of cash balance plans
allows employees to earn their retirement benefits more evenly
throughout their careers, as opposed to defined benefit plans
where benefits accrue primarily at the end of an employee's
career.

Despite having some of the characteristics of defined contribution
plans, cash balance plans are governed by the same rules that
apply to defined benefit plans.  Many cash balance plans are the
result of conversions from traditional defined benefit plans, and
there are a variety of ways in which employers may provide for the
conversion and transition to the new plan design.

Both defined benefit plans, including cash balance plans, and
defined contribution plans are subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which requires the creation
of a summary plan document, which summarizes the plan document in
plain language, and the issuance of Summary of Material
Modifications (SMM), which describes in plain language any changes
made to the terms of a plan.

Facts of this case

In 1998, CIGNA Corp. amended its pension plan from a traditional
defined benefit formula to a cash balance plan.  Under the
conversion, plan participants were provided with a starting
balance in their cash balance accounts, which was calculated
based, in part, on their accrued benefit under the plan's original
defined benefit formula.  This amount was then discounted into a
lump-sum amount, using prescribed interest rates and mortality
assumptions.

In order to accommodate the transition of the plan, in over-
simplified terms, plan participants were given the greater of a
formula based on their accrued benefits under the original defined
benefit formula at the time of the plan's conversion, or the
amount of their balance under the cash balance benefit.

But this resulted in a phenomenon referred to as "wear away,"
where certain employees could continue to receive credits under
the cash balance plan, but their benefit under the plan would not
increase because their benefit based on the original defined
benefit formula remained greater than under the cash balance
benefit.  Although CIGNA issued an SMM and SPD explaining the
conversion to a cash balance plan, neither document addressed or
mentioned the wear-away situation.

In 2001, current and former employees of CIGNA filed a class-
action lawsuit, alleging that the SPD issued in connection with
the conversion to a cash balance formula mistakenly led
participants to believe that they would be able to immediately
accrue benefits under the cash balance plan.

A federal district court held that the SPD was deficient under
ERISA because it failed to disclose the wear-away phenomenon to
participants.  According to the district court, the plaintiffs
were entitled to recover because they were "likely harmed" by the
deficient SPD.  It awarded each participant the benefit that the
SPD purported to offer.  The district court did not require a
participant-by-participant showing of injury because of the
deficient SPD.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling

Much of the Supreme Court's opinion centered on a technical
analysis of the applicable ERISA cause of action section.  While
the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts' decisions were
incorrect in the section of ERISA that they relied on, it
ultimately found that such relief was permissible, albeit under a
different ERISA provision.  The section of the law that the
Supreme Court relied on is a catch-all provision that authorizes a
participant, beneficiary or fiduciary "to obtain other appropriate
equitable relief."

According to the Supreme Court, because the law authorizes
"appropriate equitable relief" for ERISA violations, the relevant
standard of harm is dependent on the specific equitable theory by
which relief is provided.  It declined to opine on which equitable
theory was applicable under these facts and remanded the case to
the district court to make the determination of whether a remedy
was appropriate under the cited catch-all ERISA provision.

Although the Supreme Court declined to make a ruling under these
facts, it stated that the relief awarded by the District Court
could fall within the gambit of "equitable relief," and the
Supreme Court provided guidance regarding the required level of
harm for equitable theories that could be applicable under these
facts:

    * if the equitable remedy is reformation, a showing of
detrimental reliance need not be established;

    * if the equitable remedy is equivalent to estoppel (holding
someone to what had been promised), a showing of detrimental
reliance must be established; or

    * if the remedy is surcharge (applicable in the context of a
breach of a fiduciary duty), there must be a showing of actual
harm, which may come from detrimental reliance or from the loss of
a right protected by ERISA.

What it means for employers

The Supreme Court's decision will be hailed as a victory for
participants of employee benefit plans.  The decision holds that
participants could be entitled to equitable relief where there are
inconsistencies between an SPD and the underlying plan document,
and that detrimental reliance need not always be established.

The decision will probably result in an increased amount of
litigation.  In applying such a standard, plan participants may be
entitled to relief even if they never read the SPD nor
detrimentally relied on it. In addition, the ruling implicitly
allows ERISA class actions because participants will not be
required to establish individualized harm for certain equitable
relief.

Employers should carefully review existing SPDs to ensure
consistency with the terms of the plan document.  In many cases,
you may likely need to add additional provisions to the SPDs or
provide a more detailed summary of plan provisions.


                             *********

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  * * *