CAR_Public/110601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 107

                             Headlines

8X8 INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Meierdiercks" Suit
AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Brazil
AES CORP: Dismissal of Class Suit Declared Final and Unappealable
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend "Klugman" Suit in Maryland
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Modify Mortgages

BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Selling Product that Doesn't Work
BP: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Suits Seeking Economic Damages
BRONCO DRILLING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Chesapeake Merger
CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Suits on Product Reimbursements
CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Valeant-Related Suits

CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in California
CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Violation of Wage Laws
CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling in New Jersey Class Suit
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Litigation in Youbet Class Suits Terminated
CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Action Suits

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action
DICK'S SPORTING: Hearing in FLSA-Violation Suits Set for June 1
DSW INC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Bank of America Suit Remains Pending
ENSCO PLC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Stockholder Suits

FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $60MM
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: New York Antitrust Suit in Pre-Trial Stage
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Ohio Securities Suit in Discovery Stage
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal
FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Refuses to Amend Class Definition

FLORIDA: Class Action v. Transportation Dept. Can Proceed
GT SOLAR: Gets Preliminary Approval of Deal in Consolidated Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
HANOVER INSURANCE: Decision on Anti-Assignment Issue Still Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 162,600 More Notebook Computer Batteries

HOLLY CORP: Continues to Defend Frontier Merger Class Suits
INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Competition Class Suits
LOJACK CORP: Trial for Data Transmission Claim in "Rutti" Suit Set
LOJACK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Remand Order
LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Okay on "Morin" Class Suit Settlement

LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suit Still Pending
MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Motions in Vioxx ERISA Suit Due June
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits vs. Old Merck

MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses "Stratte-McClure" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in WaMu Securities Suit to be Completed
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" 401(k) Suit in N.Y.
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Class Suit
NEW LEAF: Continues to Defend Lead-Related Suit in California

PHI INC: Continues to Defend Superior Offshore Suit
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Fully Briefed
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accused of Securities Law Violations
RAWLINGS COMPANY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders

RURAL/METRO CORP: Defending Suits Challenging Warburg Merger
SATYAM COMPUTER: Posts 4Q Net Loss After Class Action Settlement
SCORES HOLDING: Prepares Documents to Settle "Siri Diaz" Suit
SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal Briefs Stayed Pending Dismissal Plea
STATE STREET: Continues to Defend "Deceptive Practice" Suit

STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder-Related Suits
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Request for Review Will Be Heard Today
STEVE MADDEN: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Tahvilian" Suit

SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Awaits Rulings on Motions to Dismiss Appeals
THE9 LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed
THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over False Stats
TORCHMARK CORP: Trial in Arkansas Suit Set for Jan. 17, 2012
TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit

TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
TOYOTA AUTO: Continues to Defend Sudden Acceleration Suits
VELTI PLC: Unit Accused of Violating California Consumers Act
WALTER ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Moore" Suit in Alabama
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois

XL GROUP: Execution of Formal Settlement in MDL Suit Still Pending
YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Settles Class Action for $3.6 Million
ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $2.1 Million Settlement Payment in "Berg" Suit




                             *********

8X8 INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Meierdiercks" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
8x8, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with Nikki
Meierdiercks et al. in connection with their putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, according to the Company's May 23,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 27, 2010, the Company was named a defendant in a
lawsuit, Nikki Meierdiercks et al. v. 8x8, Inc., filed by three
former employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court as a
putative class action seeking damages and various penalties under
the California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime, meal
breaks, rest breaks and alleged late wage payments and
unreimbursed business expenses.  On November 9, 2010, the Company
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to
settle the lawsuit for $625,000.  The Company accrued this
$625,000 in the third quarter of fiscal 2011.  The settlement
amount is still subject to approval by the Court, though the
Company does not expect to incur any substantial amounts related
to the litigation in the future.


AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of The AES Corporation are awaiting a judge's
determination as to who will serve as expert to produce expert
evidence in a public class action arising from presence of
contaminants at a subsidiary's factory in Brazil, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

AES Florestal, Ltd., had been operating a pole factory and had
other assets, including a wooded area known as "Horto Renner," in
the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Florestal had been under the control of AES Sul since October
1997, when Sul was created pursuant to a privatization by the
Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came under
the control of Sul, Florestal performed an environmental audit of
the entire operational cycle at the pole factory. The audit
discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other
contaminants at the pole factory. The audit concluded that the
prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia
ElEtrica, had been using those contaminants to treat the poles
that were manufactured at the factory. Sul and Florestal
subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian
authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment
and remediation measures. The Public Attorney's Office has
initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n. 24/05) to investigate
potential civil liability and has requested that the police
station of Triunfo institute a police investigation (IP number
1041/05) to investigate potential criminal liability regarding the
contamination at the pole factory. The parties filed defenses in
response to the civil inquiry. The Public Attorney's Office then
requested an injunction which the judge rejected on September 26,
2008. The Public Attorney's office has a right to appeal the
decision. The environmental agency has also started a procedure
(Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be
taken to contain and remediate the contamination. Also, in March
2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the
Property that it acquired through the privatization but that
remained registered in CEEE's name. During those proceedings, AES
subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and
asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property.
That claim is pending. In November 2005, the 7th Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned
to CEEE. CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since
September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006.
In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical Cooperation
Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from
FEPAM in order to present a proposal. In March 2008, the State
Prosecution office filed a Public Class Action against AES
Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction for the
removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the payment of
an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($4 million). The
injunction was rejected and the case is in the evidentiary state
awaiting the judge's determination as to who will serve as the
court- appointed expert with responsibility for producing the
expert evidence. The proposal was delivered on April 8, 2008.
FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties should undertake
the first step of the proposal which would be to retain a
contractor. In its response, Sul indicated that such step should
be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental events
resulted from CEEE's operations. It is estimated that remediation
could cost approximately R$14.7 million ($9 million). Discussions
between Sul and CEEE are ongoing.

The AES Corporation operate two primary lines of business: the
Generation business, where the Company owns and/or operate power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers, and the
Utilities business, where the Company owns and/or operate
utilities which distribute, transmit and sell electricity to end-
user customers in the residential, commercial, industrial and
governmental sectors within a defined service area and in certain
circumstances, sell electricity on the wholesale market.


AES CORP: Dismissal of Class Suit Declared Final and Unappealable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Brazilian court's decision to dismiss a class action lawsuit
involving The AES Corporation's subsidiary became final and
unappealable in March, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of
Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in the 16th
District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, claiming that
AES Sul has been illegally passing PIS and COFINS taxes to
consumers. According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws
of Brazil, and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such
as AES Sul are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power
bills to final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included
in the energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers.
Before AES Sul had been served with the action, the District Court
dismissed the lawsuit in October 2009 on the ground that AES Sul
had been properly highlighting PIS and COFINS taxes in consumer
bills in accordance with Brazilian law. In April 2010, the PDO
appealed to the Appellate Court of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.
In November 2010, the AC affirmed the dismissal. The PDO did not
appeal, and the District Court's decision became final and
unappealable in March 2011.

The AES Corporation operates two primary lines of business: the
Generation business, where the Company owns or operates power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers, and the
Utilities business, where the Company owns or operates utilities
which distribute, transmit and sell electricity to end-user
customers.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend "Klugman" Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, Ltd., continues to defend itself in a purported
class action captioned Klugmann v. American Capital, Ltd., et al.
before a federal court in Maryland, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2011

The Company and certain of its executive officers are defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American
Capital, Ltd., et al. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2007
and November 7, 2008, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual
assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation
that the defendants made incorrect statements related to the
Company's dividend guidance for 2008. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs and expenses. On June 14, 2010, the
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the matter, without
prejudice. The case is in the discovery stage and the Company
intends to continue to contest the matter vigorously.

American Capital, Ltd.'s $5.7 billion on-balance sheet investment
portfolio consists of investments in senior debt, mezzanine debt
and equity in controlled and non-controlled private and public
companies and structured product investments, including commercial
mortgage backed securities, commercial collateralized loan
obligation securities and collateralized debt obligation
securities.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Modify Mortgages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America reneged on
its agreements to modify mortgages, homebuyers say in a federal
class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Jones, et ux. v. Bank of America, N.A.
and BAC Home Loans Serving, LP, Case No. 11-cv-01161 (S.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/27/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
          Kyle Van Dyke, Esq.
          HURST & HURST
          401 W. A Street, Suite 1825
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-0016
          E-mail: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com


BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Selling Product that Doesn't Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Kristina McClure, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Belkin International, Inc., and Target
Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-19048 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May
25, 2011), Ms. McClure, an Illinois resident, seeks to represent a
class of similarly situated persons who purchased a TuneCast
Universal at retail, in the State of Illinois, from brick-and-
mortar retailers such as Target retail stores between August 2010
and May 25, 2011.

Belkin International makes the TuneCast Universal FM Transmitter,
a small device that purportedly enables an "iPod" or other
portable MP3 audio player to play music or audio content through a
car stereo and speaker system.

Ms. McClure says the TuneCast Universal simply fails to play the
very music or audio content of the audio player, and broadcasts an
unwelcome degree of static, rendering the content of MP3 music
played through the device effectively inaudible and unable to be
used for its intended purpose.

Ms. McClure relates that defendants should not have allowed the
products to be sold, or should have apprised consumers of the
product's limitations at the time of sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Anita Dellaria, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          505 North LaSalle, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654


BP: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Suits Seeking Economic Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a BP
attorney told a federal judge on May 26 that thousands of lawsuits
for economic damages must be dismissed because they were filed
before claimants tried to settle through BP's $20-billion Gulf
Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) administered by Kenneth Feinberg.

Oil spill defendants also claimed immunity from liability for the
toxic dispersant Corexit, saying they simply made "decisions that
should have been made by the United States government."

BP and other oil-spill defendants, including Nalco, which makes
Corexit, told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier that they are
immune from liability because they were simply following orders
that should have been handed down by the president of the United
States under the National Environmental Emergencies Contingency
Plan.

"The point we are trying to make, your honor, is that the claims
the plaintiffs are making -- that the dispersants are too
dangerous, etc. -- these were decisions that should have been made
by the United States government," Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.,
attorney for Nalco, told Judge Barbier toward the hearing's end.

BP attorney Andrew Langan, Esq., said the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)
was set up to help claimants settle out of court.  He said that
one stipulation for filing an economic damages lawsuit against BP
is that a claimant must have filed a claim with the GCCF and been
denied.

But now that the lawsuits have been filed, Judge Barbier, who is
presiding over the consolidated litigation, wondered how to
address the issue of presentment to the GCCF.

"I could rule as a matter of law -- which you have asked me to do
-- but I don't want to down the road have to deal with individual
rulings on 100,000 claims," Judge Barbier told Mr. Langan.

Earlier on May 26, Judge Barbier said the number of lawsuits so
far filed in the multi-district litigation "is probably something
north of 120,000 - 130,000 cases."

Ninety-five thousand claimants have joined the litigation by
filing short-form joinders that were created to allow plaintiffs
to join the litigation without excessive paperwork.

The GCCF meanwhile has been criticized for requiring extensive
documentation from claimants.

Gulf Coast lawmakers this past winter expressed frustration with
the claims center, saying BP and Mr. Feinberg were intentionally
stalling responses to claims to lure desperate claimants into
accepting onetime quick payments of $25,000 for businesses or
$5,000 for individuals.  The payments require a signed waiver
stating the claimant won't litigate for more damages from BP or
any of the other oil spill defendants.

"BP's position is that any people who have claims should decide
this out of court," Mr. Langan said.

Mr. Langan said he knows that filing through the GCCF "is a huge
inconvenience for the plaintiffs" and he understands the plaintiff
steering committee wants to take the matters to court and "stick
their stake in the ground," but he said OPA guidelines still
apply.

The next issue addressed was whether people who have lost wages
because of the federal drilling moratorium can file claims with
BP.

"It is our position that 'but for causation' under OPA is not
enough," Mr. Langan told the judge.  Mr. Langan defined "but for
causation" as that which arrives through a thought process like:
"but for the oil spill I would still have a job."

"If 'but for causation' were the standard, there would be no end
to OPA litigation," Mr. Langan said.

Judge Barbier kept arguments moving, to stay within the 3 hours
allotted for the hearing.

Next up, Jeffrey Breit from the plaintiff steering committee told
the judge the language of the Oil Pollution Act should not be read
as open to debate.  Much argument surrounds how OPA interacts with
state and maritime law.

Mr. Breit said that if something is not written in the act, then
it isn't there.  He said the act was intended as "an expansive
statute" to help oil-spill victims, but the "defendant attorneys
want to use OPA as a shield" against liability.

Plaintiff liaison counsel, Steve Herman, Esq., said the moratorium
was a foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, and BP and the
other defendants are obligated to pay for lost wages resulting
from the moratorium.

Mr. Herman said "the moratorium was actually imposed by the
environmental damages of the Macondo well" blowout.
"When you have an environmental catastrophe, you expect the
government to step in," Mr. Herman said.  He said it wasn't the
moratorium that kept companies from drilling, but the response to
the oil spill.

"Drilling in Idaho wasn't halted" in response to the spill,
Mr. Herman said, only drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Judge Barbier asked what Mr. Herman thought about BP's argument
that thousands of claimants have joined the litigation without
going first to the GCCF.

"If they're right about the law, how do you want to handle it?"
Judge Barbier asked.  "I'm sure you acknowledge that a large
number of claims were filed without presentment."

Mr. Herman said it seemed a waste of resources to go through each
claim individually to make sure it has been properly filed.

Judge Barbier did not indicate when he would rule on the matter.

The next issue involved oil-spill response workers who have filed
claims for health problems from exposure to oil and dispersant.

Mary Rose Alexander, representing Nalco, told the judge that using
Corexit on the spill was the president's decision.

"Plaintiffs allege that the dispersants were too toxic, too
dangerous, but the Clean Water Act gives this to the president to
decide," Ms. Alexander said.

Corexit is banned in several countries including the United
Kingdom for being highly toxic.  Different forms of the dispersant
were used in large amounts during the Exxon Valdez spill and were
later blamed for liver and kidney failure, miscarriage and fetal
death, rapid destruction of red blood cells leading to severe
anemia, and other health problems.

BP continued to spray Corexit in May 2010 even after Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson told it to stop.
When BP did not stop, Ms. Jackson told it to try to find a less
toxic alternative.

Michael Lyle, Esq., an attorney for O'Brien's Response Management,
which bought and supplied dispersant said the company was acting
through the federal government under the command of Coast Guard
Adm. Thad Allen, and therefore shared in the government's immunity
from liability.

Mr. Lyle referred to a ruling by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on response by workers that came
after the World Trade Center bombings.

"The facts are remarkably similar" to the World Trade disaster,
Mr. Lyle said.

"The 2nd Circuit said, 'We need contractors to come, we need them
and we can't make them afraid of liability,'" Mr. Lyle said.

"Actually, it was more compelling in our case, because it was the
federal government controlling the response," not the state,
Mr. Lyle said.

Robin Greenwald, Esq., of the plaintiff steering committee
rebutted Mr. Lyle's argument, saying the difference between the
World Trade Center bombings and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is
that the bombings were acts of terrorism while the oil spill was
caused by a company that subsequently took responsibility and
coordinated its own response effort.

"The responders -- all of them -- worked for BP.  They worked for
the polluter.  The World Trade disaster contractors had a
relationship with the government.  But without that relationship,
how can the government tell the contractors what to do?"
Mr. Greenwald asked.

The hearing addressed defendants' motions to dismiss pleading
bundles B1, B2 and D1 in the consolidated oil spill litigation.

A monthly oil spill status conference took place before the
hearing.  The next status conference is scheduled for July 8 at
9:30 a.m.


BRONCO DRILLING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Chesapeake Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding, as amended, to resolve class action lawsuits
commenced in connection with its proposed merger with Chesapeake
Energy Corporation and Nomac Acquisition, Inc., according to the
Company's May 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On April 14, 2011, Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended on May 17, 2011, with
Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Nomac Acquisition, Inc., an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake (Merger Sub).

Ten putative class action lawsuits relating to the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated therein were commenced
against the Company.  Six of these suits were filed in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and four were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  All but one of
the Oklahoma Suits has been voluntarily dismissed.  On May 6,
2011, the Delaware Suits were consolidated into a single action.
On May 10, 2011, the remaining Oklahoma Suit was stayed in favor
of the Delaware Suits.  These suits name as defendants the
Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, and in
certain instances, Chesapeake and Merger Sub.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the lawsuits is without merit and that they have valid defenses to
all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any
litigation relating to such lawsuits, on May 17, 2011, the Company
and other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the parties to the Delaware Suits pursuant to which the
Company and such parties agreed in principle, and subject to
certain conditions, to settle those lawsuits.  Subject to approval
of the Delaware Court of Chancery and further definitive
documentation, the MOU establishes a framework to resolve the
Delaware Suits against the Company and the other defendants in
connection with the Merger Agreement and contemplates a release
and settlement of all claims against the Company and other
defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the
Merger Agreement.  In exchange for such release and settlement,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties agreed that (i) the
Company, Chesapeake, and Merger Sub would modify the Merger
Agreement to reflect the Amendment, (ii) the Company would provide
additional disclosures in an amendment to its
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, which
amendment was filed on May 18, 2011, and (iii) Chesapeake and
Merger Sub would extend the expiration of the Offer from 12:00
midnight, New York City time, at the end of Monday, May 23, 2011,
to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of Tuesday,
May 31,  2011.  The settlement is also contingent upon, among
other things, consummation of the Merger.

On May 20, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion
filed by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Suits to certify a class.
The order entered by the Court, among other things, certified a
class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of the
Company's common stock at any time between April 14, 2011, and the
date of consummation of the merger.  Excluded from the Class are
the Company, Chesapeake, Merger Sub, D. Frank Harrison, Richard B.
Hefner, Gary C. Hill, David W. House and William R. Snipes or any
of their respective families, parent entities, controlling
persons, associates, predecessors, successors, affiliates or
subsidiaries, and each and all of their respective past or present
officers, directors, stockholders, principals, representatives,
employees, attorneys, financial or investment advisors,
consultants, accountants, investment bankers, commercial bankers,
entities providing fairness opinions, underwriters, brokers,
dealers, advisors or agents, heirs, executors, trustees, general
or limited partners or partnerships, limited liability companies,
members, managers, joint ventures, personal or legal
representatives, estates, administrators, predecessors, successors
and assigns.  In addition, the Court certified plaintiffs to the
Delaware Suits as the representatives of the Class and their
counsel as co-lead counsel for the Class.

In the event the settlement anticipated by the MOU is not
approved, the Company will continue to vigorously defend these
actions.  This summary of the MOU does not purport to be complete
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the MOU, which is
included as Exhibit (a)(5)(O) to the Company's Amendment No. 2 to
the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed
by the Company as of May 18, 2011.

On May 18, 2011, Chesapeake and the Company issued a joint press
release announcing the entry into the Amendment and the MOU.


CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Suits on Product Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc. continues to defend putative class action
complaints filed by entities that claim to have reimbursed for
prescriptions of the Company's product for uses outside of the
product's label in non-cancer patients, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In late 2007, the Company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed in the EDPA on behalf of entities
that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses
outside of the product's approved label in non-cancer patients.
The complaints allege violations of various state consumer
protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of
unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest, and/or
disgorgement of profits. In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated and amended complaint that also alleges violations of
RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO. The RICO allegations were
dismissed with prejudice in May 2009. In February 2009, the
Company was served with an additional putative class action
complaint filed on behalf of two health and welfare trust funds
that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of GABITRIL and
PROVIGIL for uses outside the approved labels for each product.
The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of
unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest. The Company
believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters and in any
similar actions that may be filed in the future. These efforts
will be both expensive and time consuming and, ultimately, due to
the nature of litigation, there can be no assurance that these
efforts will be successful.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- sells more than 150
products in nearly 100 countries.


CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Valeant-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend itself against class actions
alleging breach of duties, which are pending in Delaware,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In early May 2011, Cephalon announced together with Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. that their companies' respective
Boards of Directors have unanimously approved an Agreement and
Plan of Merger under which Teva will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Cephalon for $81.50 per share in cash.  The
transaction, which is not conditioned on financing, is subject to
the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including
expiration of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act and clearance by the European
Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, as well as the approval
of Cephalon stockholders.  The transaction is expected to be
completed in the third quarter of 2011.

Each of Cephalon and Teva has made representations and warranties
in the Merger Agreement.  Cephalon has also agreed to various
covenants and agreements, including, subject to certain
exceptions, (i) not to solicit alternative transactions or enter
into discussions concerning, or provide non-public information to
third parties in connection with, any alternative transaction and
(ii) to call and hold a stockholder meeting and recommend that the
Company's stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement.  The parties
have also agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to cause the
transaction to be consummated.

The Merger Agreement contains specified termination rights for the
parties, including the right of Cephalon in certain circumstances
to terminate the Merger Agreement and accept a Superior Proposal
(as defined in the Merger Agreement).  The Merger Agreement also
provides that, in certain circumstances, the Company would be
required to pay Teva a termination fee of $275 million.

Cephalon's announcement with Teva follows an unsolicited proposal
Cephalon received from Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc., in March 2011 to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Cephalon's common stock for $73 per share.  In early April 2011,
Cephalon's Board announced that, after carefully reviewing the
proposal and after consultation with Cephalon's financial and
legal advisors, it unanimously concluded that the proposal is
inadequate and not in the best interests of Cephalon's
shareholders. Thereafter, in late April 2011, Valeant initiated a
consent solicitation process by nominating 8 candidates to remove
and replace its current Board.  On May 2, 2011, Valeant announced
it was ending its consent solicitation process due to the signing
of the Merger Agreement by Cephalon and Teva.

Three putative class actions have been filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against the Company's Board or the Company, alleging
breach of duties in connection with Valeant's non-binding
acquisition proposal and seeking injunctive relief. The Company
expects additional complaints to be filed relating to its proposed
acquisition by Teva. The Company intends to vigorously defend
these actions.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- sells more than 150
products in nearly 100 countries.


CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Orange County, California, by
Lorraine V. Garcia, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in February 2011 in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Orange, Lorraine V. Garcia v.
Chico's FAS, Inc.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, in
violation of California law, requested or required customers to
provide personal information as a condition of accepting payment
by credit card.  The Company denies the material allegations of
the Complaint.  The Company believes that the case is wholly
without merit and, thus, does not believe that the case should
have any material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Violation of Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, California, by Eileen
Schlim alleging violations of California labor laws, according to
the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and
vacation pay, among other things.  The Company denies the material
allegations of the Complaint.  The Company believes that its
policies and procedures for paying its associates comply with all
applicable California laws.  As a result, the Company does not
believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.


CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling in New Jersey Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in a New Jersey court,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the
investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and
state courts.  On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  This action, brought
against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants,
asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act arising from the alleged
unlawful use of contingent commission agreements.

On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety.
In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and
RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it
dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice
because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
them.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part
and vacated in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded
the case back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings.
As a result of the Third Circuit's decision, the plaintiffs' state
law claims and certain of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims were reinstated against the Corporation.  The Corporation
and the other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the
reinstated claims.  Since that time, several of the defendants
agreed to settlements in principle with the plaintiffs.  Those
settlements are pending approval by the District Court.  The
Corporation and the other remaining defendants that have not
settled with plaintiffs argued their motions to dismiss before the
District Court on March 23, 2011.  The parties are awaiting the
N.J. District Court's decision.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to
the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been
filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between
2005 and 2007.  These actions have been subsequently removed and
ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for
consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.  These actions are currently stayed.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants unlawfully
used contingent commission agreements and conspired to reduce
competition in the insurance markets.  The actions seek treble
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees.
The Corporation believes it has substantial defenses to the
aforementioned legal proceedings and intends to defend the action
vigorously.

The Corporation cannot predict at this time the ultimate outcome
of the aforementioned ongoing investigations and legal
proceedings, including any potential amounts that the Corporation
may be required to pay in connection with them.  Nevertheless,
management believes that it is likely that the outcome will not
have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's results of
operations or financial condition.

Headquartered in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation is a holding
company for a family of property and casualty insurance companies
known informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the
P&C Group). Since 1882, the P&C Group has provided property and
casualty insurance to businesses and individuals around the
world.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Litigation in Youbet Class Suits Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation in class action lawsuits filed by Youbet.com, Inc.,
stockholders against Youbet, Churchhills Downs Incorporated, their
officers and directors, and their subsidiaries were terminated
after final approval of the settlement of the class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On November 17, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Wayne
Witkowski v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles, California against Youbet, several of its
directors, the Company and the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Tomahawk Merger Corp., and Tomahawk Merger LLC.
Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were also filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court, two of which name Youbet and its directors
as defendants and three of which also name the Company as a
defendant.  All six lawsuits, which the Company refers to
collectively as the Los Angeles litigation, are putative class
actions brought on behalf of Youbet's stockholders.  The
plaintiffs in the Los Angeles litigation have since moved to
consolidate the Los Angeles litigation, to file a single
consolidated complaint and to appoint lead counsel.  That motion
was granted on January 22, 2010.

The complaints in the Los Angeles litigation all allege that
Youbet's directors breached their fiduciary duties, including
alleged duties of loyalty, due care and candor, in connection with
the merger transaction.  In that regard, the various complaints
include, among other things, allegations that the transaction is
the result of an inadequate sales process which was designed to
maximize stockholder value; that the consideration to be received
by Youbet shareholders was unfair and inadequate; that the merger
agreement included inappropriate "no solicitation," "matching
rights," no standstill waiver, and termination fee provisions;
that the combined effect of these provisions, together with
Youbet's waiver of the Youbet stockholder rights agreement with
respect to the Company and the entry of voting agreements by the
defendants and certain others pursuant to which they agreed to
vote in favor of the merger, was to "lock up" the merger
transaction, foreclose potential alternative bidders and illegally
restrain Youbet's ability to solicit or engage in negotiations
with a third party; that various defendants acted for their own
benefit in approving the merger, including for the purpose of
obtaining positions or pursuing opportunities at the Company; and
that material information was not provided in connection with the
transaction and was not provided at the time that Youbet submitted
the Youbet stockholder rights agreement to a stockholder vote.
Those lawsuits which name the Company or its affiliates as
defendants also allege that the Company aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Youbet's directors.  Youbet
is also alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by its directors.  Among the relief sought by the
complaints is unspecified damages, together with payment of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 23, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Raymond
Balch v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against Youbet, several of its directors, the Company,
Merger Sub and Merger LLC alleging claims similar to the Los
Angeles Litigation.  On January 8, 2010, Mr. Balch amended his
complaint to add counts asserting that Youbet's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Youbet stockholders by allegedly failing
to disclose material information regarding the sale of Youbet in a
preliminary registration statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 24, 2009, and that Youbet and the
Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

On March 2, 2010, Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger
Sub, and Merger LLC entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Litigation and the
plaintiffs in the Balch litigation reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the cases based on, among other things, the
defendants' agreement to include in an amended registration
statement certain additional disclosures relating to the sale of
Youbet.  The memorandum of understanding provides that the
settlement is subject to customary conditions including the
completion of appropriate settlement documentation and completion
of confirmatory discovery.  Pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding, an amended registration statement was filed
containing the additional agreed disclosures.

On or about July 14, 2010, the parties to the Los Angeles
Litigation and the Balch litigation entered into a settlement
agreement consistent with the terms of the memorandum of
understanding. The settlement agreement provided, among other
things, for a certification of a class for settlement purposes,
dismissal with prejudice of the Los Angeles Litigation and the
Balch litigation, releases by class members and payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the court, with the
settlement agreement being subject to court approval.  In both the
memorandum of understanding and the settlement agreement, Youbet,
Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC each
denied that they committed or aided and abetted in the commission
of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts
alleged in the complaints, and expressly maintained that they
diligently and scrupulously complied with any and all of their
legal duties.  Although Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company,
Merger Sub, and Merger LLC believed the lawsuits were without
merit, they entered into the memorandum of understanding and
settlement to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.  On July 14, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles
Litigation filed the settlement agreement with the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, together with a request for
preliminary approval of the settlement and of a proposed class
notice and for the scheduling of a hearing date for final approval
of the settlement.  On August 19, 2010, the court presiding over
the Los Angeles litigation granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement.  On December 20, 2010, the Los Angeles court
granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order and
final judgment, which, among other things, dismissed the Los
Angeles Litigation with prejudice and approved a release to the
defendants from or on behalf of all of Youbet's non-affiliated
public stockholders who held Youbet common stock at any time from
November 10, 2009, through the date of the consummation of the
merger.  The deadline for an appeal from the order and final
judgment in Los Angeles Litigation expired on February 18, 2011,
with no appeal having been filed.  Under the settlement agreement,
the parties submitted an agreed order to dismiss the Balch
litigation with prejudice, and on March 4, 2011, the Delaware
court entered a dismissal of the Balch litigation with prejudice.
As a result, all related litigation has terminated.  The Company
has not incurred any material loss or expense as a result of this
settlement.

Churchill Downs Incorporated --
http://www.ChurchillDownsIncorporated.com/-- headquartered in
Louisville, Ky., owns and operates four world renowned
Thoroughbred racing facilities: Arlington Park in Illinois, Calder
Casino and Race Course in Florida, Churchill Downs Race Track in
Kentucky and Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots in Louisiana.  CDI
operates slot and gaming operations in Louisiana and Florida.
Churchill Downs tracks are host to North America's most
prestigious races, including the Arlington Million, the Kentucky
Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, the Louisiana Derby and the Princess
Rooney, along with hosting the Breeders' Cup World Championships
for a record seventh time on Nov. 5-6, 2010.  Churchill Downs also
owns off-track betting facilities, TwinSpires.com and other
advance-deposit wagering channels, television production,
telecommunications and racing service companies such as BRIS and a
50-percent interest in the national cable and satellite network,
HorseRacing TV, which supports Churchill Downs' network of
simulcasting and racing operations.  Churchill Downs'
Entertainment Group produces the HullabaLOU Music Festival at
Churchill Downs which premieres on July 23-25, 2010.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc., continues to face two purported shareholder
class action lawsuits in California alleging the Company and
certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements during quarterly earnings calls, according to the
Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On March 31, 2011, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Cisco and certain of its officers
and directors.  A second lawsuit with substantially similar
allegations was filed with the same court on April 12, 2011,
against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors.  The
lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased
Cisco's publicly traded securities between May 12, 2010, and
February 9, 2011, and between February 3, 2010, and February 9,
2011, respectively.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false
and misleading statements during quarterly earnings calls, purport
to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws,
and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Community Health Systems, Inc. common stock
between July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, inclusive.

What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased or acquires
shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than
July 8, 2011.  If you would like to discuss this action, the lead
plaintiff process, or have any questions concerning this notice,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at
(888) 300-3362 x302 or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com

Any member of the putative class may request a lead plaintiff
appointment through counsel of its choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants' public statements
about Community Health were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose material adverse facts including:
(a) the Company's growth statistics, revenues, and profits were
inflated as a result of its improper admissions procedures
designed to overbill Medicare; (b) because Community Health's
financial results were artificially inflated, the potential
synergies arising from the Tenet Healthcare acquisition were much
less compelling than represented; and (c) as a result, defendants
also knew that their forecasted profit and revenue numbers were
unattainable and lacked a reasonable basis when made.  Based upon
the foregoing, the complaint charges Community Health and certain
of the Company's officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

                    About Dyer & Berens LLP

The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP --
http://ww.DyerBerens.com-- prosecutes investor class actions
involving financial fraud.  The firm's extensive experience in
securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the
recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
investors.


DICK'S SPORTING: Hearing in FLSA-Violation Suits Set for June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York will convene a hearing on June 1, 2011, to consider final
approval of Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.'s settlement agreement
resolving various class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's May 23, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in Tamara Barrus, et al. v Dick's
Sporting Goods, Inc. et al., a case that makes claims concerning
alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.  The case was filed
in May of 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York.  In their complaint, in addition to the unpaid wage
and overtime allegations, plaintiffs seek liquidated damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.  In September
2006, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York conditionally certified a class for
notice purposes under the FLSA, which the U.S. District Judge
upheld.  The parties and the court agreed to stay the litigation
pending an attempt to resolve all claims through mediation.
Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007 and November
2008 and these attempts to resolve the case through mediation were
unsuccessful.  In December 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding five individual defendants, claims for allegedly
unpaid wages and overtime under the laws of thirty-five states,
and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  In August
2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims (except
those arising under New York law), ERISA claims and RICO claims.

In September 2010, following the dismissal of the state law claims
in Barrus (except those arising under New York law), state wage
and hour class action complaints were filed against the Company in
Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Delaware,
Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Massachusetts.  In
these actions, plaintiffs assert claims similar to those in the
Barrus case and plaintiffs are seeking remedies that include (to
the extent applicable in each state) injunctive relief, unpaid
wages (including fringe benefits), liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, expenses, expert fees and an award of interest.

On January 28, 2011, the Company and attorneys for a group of
plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York to settle
Barrus and the State Claims.  The settlement, which is subject to
court approval, covers wage and hour claims under the laws of 36
states.  Under the settlement, the total amount to be paid will
depend on the number of claims that are submitted by class members
with a maximum settlement amount not to exceed $15 million plus
interest and taxes.  On February 3, 2011, the court granted
preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement and set
a fairness hearing for June 1, 2011.  The settlement and related
fees resulted in a pre-tax charge during the fiscal fourth quarter
of 2010 of approximately $10.8 million ($6.5 million after tax).


DSW INC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DSW Inc. is awaiting court approval of its memorandum of
understanding to settle two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed merger with
Retail Ventures Inc., according to the Company's May 25, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, purported shareholders of
Retail Ventures Inc. have filed two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits in an Ohio state court captioned as: Steamfitters
local #449 Retirement Security Fund v. Schottenstein, et al., and
Farkas v. Retail Ventures, Inc.  The Steamfitters action is
brought against Retail Ventures and its directors and chief
executive officer and DSW.  The Farkas action is brought against
Retail Ventures and its directors, and DSW and DSW MS LLC, the
entity that Retail Ventures will merge into ("Merger Sub").  The
Steamfitters action alleges, among other things, that Retail
Ventures and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement, and that Retail Ventures' chief
executive officer and DSW aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Farkas action alleges, among
other things, that the Retail Ventures' board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement
and failing to disclose certain alleged material information, and
that Retail Ventures and DSW aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  Both complaints seek, among other
things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger, as well as
money damages.

In order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the
parties have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement
of the lawsuits set forth in an executed memorandum of
understanding that has been filed with the court.  The memorandum
of understanding provides for, among other things, additional
public disclosure with respect to the merger.  Based upon the
memorandum of understanding, the proposed disclosure was included
in the joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the shareholders
of RVI and DSW.  The memorandum of understanding is subject to
definitive settlement documents and final court approval.  If the
parties are unable to obtain final court approval of the
settlement, then the litigation may proceed, and the outcome of
any such litigation is inherently uncertain.


EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Bank of America Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Bank of America, et al., against
El Paso Natural Gas Company asserting royalty underpayment claims
remains pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is a named defendant, along with Burlington Resources,
Inc., now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in a class
action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P., filed in
October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma
asserting royalty underpayment claims related to specified shallow
wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.  The Plaintiffs assert
that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when the
purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act
maximum lawful prices.  The Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount
of damages against any defendant.  The Company believes that its
actions in the 1980s were proper in light of a declining market.
The Company also contends that it is entitled to an indemnity from
Burlington under its 1992 separation agreement for all claims
related to royalty payments, which Burlington denies.  The
Plaintiffs assert that royalties were further underpaid by
Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken
starting in the late 1990s.  The Company has no liability for the
post-production claims as they pertain to periods after the
Company's separation from Burlington.  This action was transferred
to Washita County District Court in 2004.  A tentative settlement
reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in June 2007.
A class certification hearing occurred in April 2009.  The court
certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of royalty owners and stayed
the claims pertaining to New Mexico wells.  The class
certification has been appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
The Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of the post-
production claims against Burlington.  The Company's costs and
legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not currently
determinable.

El Paso Natural Gas Company's primary business consists of the
interstate transportation and storage of natural gas.  The Company
conducts its business activities through its natural gas pipeline
systems and a storage facility.  The Company is based in Houston.


ENSCO PLC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Stockholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc has entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery related to its proposed merger with Pride International,
Inc., according to the Company's May 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 19, 2011, Ensco plc and the other named defendants signed a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the
previously disclosed stockholder class action lawsuits filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of February 6, 2011, and amended as of
March 1,  2011, among Pride International, Inc., Ensco, ENSCO
International Incorporated and ENSCO Ventures LLC.  As provided in
the memorandum of understanding, after approval by the Ensco board
of directors, on May 23, 2011, the parties entered into an
Amendment to the Merger Agreement.

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

The Amendment also eliminates the "force the vote" provision
applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to
submit the adoption of the Merger Agreement to its stockholders if
the Pride board of directors made an adverse recommendation
change.

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

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Pride agreed to make
certain additional disclosure related to the proposed merger,
which were made on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Pride
with the SEC on May 20, 2011.  These additional disclosures
supplement the disclosure contained in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus of Ensco and Pride filed with the SEC on
April 26, 2011, and should be read in conjunction with the
disclosures contained therein.  To the extent that information in
Pride's Current Report on Form 8-K differs from or updates
information contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, the
Current Report on Form 8-K is more current.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $60MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Farmers Insurance Co. Inc. and its affiliates
have agreed to pay up to $60 million to settle an Oklahoma class
action claiming they used consumers' credit scores to increase
premiums without providing adequate notice, the plaintiffs said on
May 20.

If the settlement is approved, Farmers and the affiliates will
shell out $52 million to the class, and up to $8 million more in
attorneys' fees and costs, to end the litigation brought by Harry
Corl, David Watts Jr. and Donna Mobbs.

The class action, part of a multidistrict litigation, accuses the
defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not
clearly informing the plaintiffs they were facing higher premiums
because of their credit scores.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreed resolution with the
plaintiffs," Farmers spokesman, Luis Sahagun, said on May 23.

In a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, the
plaintiffs' attorneys said they had reviewed 265,000 pages of
documents, taken 23 depositions, and exchanged multiple discovery
requests before striking a deal with the defendants.

"The case was aggressively litigated for approximately eight years
before a final settlement agreement was reached," the motion said.
"The plaintiffs and the defendants have fully litigated the issues
of class certification and summary judgment -- not once but
twice."

The do-over resulted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2007
that set the bar for willful violation of the FCRA, and imposed a
new test for when insurers must provide notice of an adverse
action to customers.

While the Supreme Court ruling reduced the class size in the
Farmers litigation, the settlement still impacts more than 1
million of the defendants' customers across the country who paid
higher premiums for automobile or homeowners' insurance because of
their credit scores.

Class members will receive $35 and a credit report educational
brochure, while class representatives will receive up to $5,000
each.

The plaintiffs had originally sought at least $100 per class
member, according to the consolidated and amended class action
complaint filed in January 2005.

The Oklahoma court had yet to decide whether the defendants'
actions had been willful.  The court denied the defendants' motion
that they did not willfully violate the FCRA, but also rejected
the plaintiffs' cross-motion arguing the contrary.

"This issue must be tried to a jury in order to be resolved, and
any verdict will most certainly be appealed, adding additional
years of delay to an already lengthy and complex case," the motion
said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on May 23.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Norman, Esq.
          R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 427-8715
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          Gary Corum, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 S. Commerce, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: 501-375-6453
          E-mail: gary@wecc-law.com

               - and -

          David Jones, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN & SECREST LLP
          One Houston Center
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
          Houston, TX 77010-2010
          Telephone: 713-951-6279
          E-mail: djones@brsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Telephone: 903-645-7333

               - and -

          Richard Adams, Esq.
          PATTON ROBERTS PLLC
          Wells Fargo Plaza - Suite 400
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-7000
          E-mail: radams@pattonroberts.com

               - and -

          Scott Poynter, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: 501-907-2555
          E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          William Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: 405-235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe K. Longley, Esq.
          1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477-444
          E-mail: joe@joelongley.com

               - and -

          David H. Burrow, Esq.
          MITHOFF LAW FIRM
          One Allen Center - Penthouse
          500 Dallas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 654-1122
          E-mail: dburrow@mithofflaw.com

Farmers is represented by:

          Barnes Ellis, Esq.
          Timothy Snider, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2600
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          E-mail: bhellis@stoel.com
                  twsnider@stoel.com

               - and -

          Richard Ford, Esq.
          Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C.
          20 North Broadway, Suite 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: 405-235-7749
          E-mail: richard.ford@crowedunlevy.com

The case is In re: Farmers Insurance Co. Inc., FCRA Litigation,
case number 5:03-cv-00158, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: New York Antitrust Suit in Pre-Trial Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit filed in a New York
court against Fifth Third Bancorp is in the pre-trial stage,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has
also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to
allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the
event certain settlements or judgments occur.  Accordingly, prior
to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp had
recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its
potential exposure in this and related litigation.  Additionally,
the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share of $199
million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the
Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings.  Upon the
Bancorp's sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the
recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion
risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp
reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the
Bancorp's exposure through Visa.  Additionally, the Bancorp has
remaining reserves related to this litigation of $31 million, $30
million and $26 million as of March 31, 2011, December 31, 2010
and March 31, 2010, respectively.  This antitrust litigation is
still in the pre-trial phase.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Ohio Securities Suit in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in an Ohio
court against Fifth Third Bancorp remains in the discovery stages
of litigation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, among other parties.  The five cases have
been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The lawsuits
allege violations of federal securities laws related to
disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with
the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit
losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on
behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the
Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's securities
pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation.  These
cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation.  The impact of
the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this
time.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting a court ruling on an appeal in the
class action lawsuit alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers
alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities
class action cases filed during the same period of time.  The two
cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial
court, and are being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Refuses to Amend Class Definition
----------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied plaintiff's request
to amend the class definition in the shareholder class action
lawsuit commenced against Flextronics International Ltd. over its
merger with Solectron Corp., according to the Company's May 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On June 4, 2007, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The lawsuit arises out of the
Company's merger with Solectron Corp. in 2007.  Other defendants
include selected officers of the Company, Solectron and
Solectron's former directors and officers.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory, rescissory, and other forms of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs do not seek a jury
trial.  On August 12, 2010, the Court certified a class of all
former Solectron shareholders that were entitled to vote and
receive cash or shares of the Company's stock in exchange for
their shares of Solectron stock following the merger.

On February 25, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiff's request to
amend the class definition.  The Company believes that the claims
are without merit.


FLORIDA: Class Action v. Transportation Dept. Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action can proceed against the Florida Department of
Transportation over a policy to detain and interrogate motorists
who try to pay tolls with big bills, even if the bill is just $5,
a federal judge ruled.

In its complaint, the class accused toll operators of "detaining
motorists and their passengers" paying toll with a $50 bill or
higher, but also "denominations as low as $5."  The motorists can
drive away only after they cough up personal information such as
descriptions of their vehicles and drivers' licenses.  Details
about their race, gender and age are also recorded.

The class claimed the transportation department had authorized
this practice, and filed a false-imprisonment suit against it,
several department employees and Faneuil Inc., a contractor which
provides toll personnel.

Faneuil and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
lawsuit, which they complained was conclusory.

Arguing that the suit failed to convey Faneuil's responsibility
for its employees' actions, Faneuil also pointed out that the
practice of detaining motorists had ended on July 22, 2010, so the
need for injunctive relief was moot.

U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara disagreed.

"None of the documents establish that the decision to stop the
practice of detaining motorists was an 'unambiguous' decision to
cease the practice forever," Judge Lazzara wrote.  "Many of the
intra office written communications of July and August 2010
describe the termination as temporary."

"There was no substantial deliberation in the rather quick
decision to stop the practice," he added.  "It is clear that a
detained motorist complained to FDOT about the practice, and the
practice was immediately stopped to research whether the practice
was unlawful.  Ceasing to conduct research does militate against a
finding that the decision to stop was "well-reasoned," but
instead, hasty and in anticipation of legal action."

"That FDOT was secretive about its internal decision to halt the
practice suggests that it was merely to further consider the
continuation of the practice and not to unequivocally terminate
the practice once and for all," the judge wrote.

Judge Lazzara also found that there is no information as to
whether the defendants have been consisting applying the new
procedure.

"Thus, based on the findings that the cessation was neither
'unambiguous' nor the product of 'substantial deliberation,' and
that there is no indication that a new course of conduct is being
'consistently applied,' this action is not moot," Judge Lazzara
wrote.

As it stands now, the judge said the class has alleged conduct
that violates the Fourth Amendment protections against
unreasonable search and seizure, which also encompass the right to
be free from arrest without probable cause.

Judge Lazzara agreed only to dismiss the false-imprisonment claim
against the eight individual defendants.

A copy of the Order in Chandler, et al. v. Kopelousos, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00262 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/27/Toll%20Class%20Action.pdf


GT SOLAR: Gets Preliminary Approval of Deal in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
gave preliminary approval of a settlement in a consolidated class
action lawsuit against GT Solar International, Inc., according to
the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 2,
2011.

Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the Company's
July 24, 2008, initial public offering and others, including
certain of the Company's investors, together called the "federal
class actions."  On October 3, 2008, the Court entered an order
consolidating the federal class actions into a single action
captioned Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.
The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel
in the consolidated matter on October 29, 2008.  The lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 22,
2008.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The amended consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in certain SEC filings, including the
registration statement and Prospectus for the Company's July 24,
2008 initial public offering, and other public statements,
regarding the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar,
Ltd., one of the Company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of the
Company's competitors, and certain of the Company's products,
including the DSS furnaces.  Among other relief, the amended
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on February 5, 2009.  On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the
defendant's motion.  Following the Court's denial of the motion,
the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order,
which the Court approved on November 6, 2009.  The case management
order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011.

In addition, on September 18, 2008, a putative securities class
action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior
Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District under the caption
Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and certain
underwriters of the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, called the "state class action."  The state class action
plaintiffs assert claims under various sections of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.  The state class action complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in certain SEC filings, including the registration
statement for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering,
and other public statements, regarding the status of the Company's
business relationship with LDK Solar.  Among other relief, the
state class action complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem
just and proper.

The Company removed the state class action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 22,
2008.  The state class action was consolidated with the federal
class action on November 25, 2008.  On February 2, 2009, the
federal Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state
class action to New Hampshire State Court.  On May 4, 2009, the
parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal
case.  At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the State
Court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by
the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be
taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal
class action.  With the denial of the motion to dismiss the
federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case
management order to the State Court on November 6, 2009.  On
January 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the
parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's
Business and Commercial Dispute Docket.

In March 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle these two putative securities class-action lawsuits related
to the Company's initial public offering.  The terms of the
proposed settlement, which includes no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company or by any other defendants, provides for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against all defendants in both the federal and state
securities actions.  The Company will pay $10.5 million into a
settlement fund.  Of this amount, the Company will contribute $1.0
million and the Company's liability insurers will contribute the
remaining $9.5 million.  The Company's contribution represents its
contractual indemnification obligation to its underwriters.

On May 4, 2011, the parties to the federal class action filed a
stipulation of settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with the federal court.  On May 5, 2011, the
parties to the state class action filed a stipulation of
settlement and motion for dismissal with prejudice in the state
action.  The stipulations in both the federal and the state courts
provide that the putative class in the state class action will
participate in the settlement as members of the settlement class
in the federal class action.  The stipulation filed in the state
court provides that the state class action will be dismissed with
prejudice upon entry of an order of final approval by the federal
court.

On May 13, 2011, the Federal Court gave preliminary approval of
the settlement, and ordered that notice be provided to the
proposed settlement class (as defined in the stipulation).  The
Federal Court also scheduled a hearing for September 27, 2011, to
determine whether the settlement will receive final approval.
While the Company believes that the proposed settlement is fair
and adequate to all members of the proposed settlement class,
there can be no assurance that the federal court will grant final
approval of the settlement.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
A court's decision on a motion to reconsider dismissal of claims
filed by plaintiffs in a putative class action captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 12, 2007, the putative class action suit captioned
Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The
Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company understated the
accrued benefit in the calculation.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint includes: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options
rather than crediting the greater of that performance or the 30
year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment,
which changed interest crediting for all participants from the
performance of participant's investment selections to the 30 year
Treasury rate, reduced benefits in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for participants who had
account balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to
provide them performance-based interest crediting on those
balances; and (c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA
notice requirements arising from the various interest crediting
and lump sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain.
The District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by a
Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims
substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007
complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the District Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. This matter is still in the
early stages of litigation. The extent to which any of the
Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability. It is not clear whether a
class will be certified or, if certified, how many former or
current Plan participants, if any, will be included. The statute
of limitations applicable to the alleged class has not yet been
finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if any,
will depend on this final determination. In addition, assuming for
these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims
that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were understated,
then there are numerous possible theories and other variables upon
which any revised calculation of benefits as requested under
Plaintiffs' claims could be based. It is likely that any adverse
judgment in this case would be against the Plan. Such a judgment
would be expected to create a liability for the Plan, with
resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay benefits.
The Company's future required funding of the Plan could also be
impacted by such a liability.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s business operations include
insurance products and services provided through three operating
segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines and Other Property and
Casualty.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Decision on Anti-Assignment Issue Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana supreme court has yet to decide on whether the
assignment of claims from individual claimants to the state is
barred by anti-assignment provisions in the insurance policies of
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and other insurance defendants
in the "Hurricane Katrina Litigation," according to the Company's
May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2007, the State of Louisiana filed a putative class
action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and
on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of
funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds
through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-
8970. The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and
domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a
right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and
former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or
will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program. The
case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. The court
dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty
and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but
rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments
from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-
assignment provisions in the insurers' policies. On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which was
granted. On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit certified the anti-
assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Oral arguments
were heard by the Louisiana Supreme Court on March 14, 2011, and a
decision is pending.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability. The Company
is unable to determine how many policyholders have assigned claims
under the Road Home program and, in any case, has no basis to
estimate the amount of any differences between what the Company
paid with respect to any such claim and the amount that the State
of Louisiana may claim should properly have been paid under the
policy.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s business operations include
insurance products and services provided through three operating
segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines and Other Property and
Casualty.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 162,600 More Notebook Computer Batteries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hewlett-Packard Company, of Palo Alto, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 162,600 additional lithium-ion batteries
used in HP and Compaq notebook computers -- 54,000 and 70,000
batteries were previously recalled in May 2010 and May 2009,
respectively.  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 lithium-ion batteries can overheat and rupture,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

Since the May 2010 recall expansion, HP has received 40 additional
reports of batteries that overheated and ruptured, resulting in
seven burn injuries, one smoke inhalation injury, and 36 instances
of property damage.

The recalled lithium-ion rechargeable batteries are used with
various model series of HP and Compaq notebook computers and
include batteries that consumers were informed were not included
in previous recalls.  The chart includes all notebook model
numbers associated with batteries recalled to date.  The computer
model number is located at the top of the service label on the
bottom of the notebook computer.  Not all batteries matching the
bar codes are being recalled.

                                                   Battery Bar
                                                   Codes (^ in
                                                  the code can
                                                 be any letter
   Notebook Model Number                            or number)
   ----------------------------------------      -------------
   HP Pavilion       dv2000, dv2500, dv2700,    62940^^AXV^^^^,
                     dv6000, dv6500, dv6700,    65035^^B7U^^^^,
                     dx6000, dx6500, dx6700     65035^^B7V^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGU^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGV^^^^

                     dv9000, dv9500,            65033^^B7U^^^^,
                     dv9700                     65033^^B7V^^^^,
                                                65033^^BGU^^^^,
                                                65033^^BGV^^^^

   Compaq Presario   A900
                     C700
                     F500, F700                 62940^^AXV^^^^,
                                                65035^^B7U^^^^,
                                                65035^^B7V^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGU^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGV^^^^
                     V3000, V3500, V3700,
                     V6000, V6500, V6700

   HP                G6000, G7000               62940^^AXV^^^^,
                                                65035^^B7U^^^^,
                                                65035^^B7V^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGU^^^^,
                                                65035^^BGV^^^^

   HP Compaq         6510b, 6515b, 6710b,       65000^^B5V^^^^
                     6710s, 6715b, 6715s

                     6520s                      67150^^AXU^^^^,
                                                67150^^AXV^^^^

                     6720s                      67059^^V8U^^^^,
                                                67059^^V8V^^^^

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11234.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
computer and electronics stores nationwide, hp.com and
hpshopping.com from July 2007 through July 2008 for between $500
and $3,000.  The battery packs were also sold separately for
between $100 and $160.

Consumers should immediately remove the batteries from their
notebook computer and contact HP to determine if their battery is
included in this recall.  Consumers who had previously checked
their batteries and were informed they were not included in
previous announcements are urged to check again.  Consumers with
recalled batteries will receive a free replacement battery.  After
removing the recalled battery from their notebook computer,
consumers may use the AC adapter to power the computer until a
replacement battery arrives.  For additional information, visit
the HP Battery Replacement Program Web site at
http://www.hp.com/support/BatteryReplacement/or call (888) 202-
4320 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday.


HOLLY CORP: Continues to Defend Frontier Merger Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Corporation continues to defend itself in shareholder class
action lawsuits relating to the Company's proposed merger with
Frontier Oil Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits styled as class
actions have been filed by alleged Frontier shareholders
challenging the Company's proposed "merger of equals" with
Frontier and naming as defendants Frontier, its board of directors
and, in certain instances, the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary, North Acquisition, Inc., as aiders and abettors.  To
date, those shareholder actions have been filed in Harris County,
Texas, Laramie County, Wyoming, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuits filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas
are entitled Adam Walker, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated vs. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed
February 22, 2011), Andrew Goldberg, on Behalf of Himself and All
Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Frontier Oil Corporation
v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February 24, 2011),
L.A. Murphy, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Paul B. Loyd, Jr., et al. (filed February 24, 2011),
Zhixin Huang v. Frontier Oil Corp., et al. (filed February 24,
2011), Robert Pettigrew, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed
February 25, 2011), Walter E. Ryan, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al.
(filed February 25, 2011), Christopher Borrelli, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil
Corporation, et al. (filed March 2, 2011), and Randy Whitman,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed on March 8, 2011).  The
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Laramie County, Wyoming is
entitled Thomas Greulich, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed
March 1, 2011). The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas is entitled Angelo Chiarelli, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Holly
Corporation, et al. (filed on March 2, 2011). The lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are
entitled Tim Wilcox, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed on
March 7, 2011), and Jackie A. Rhymes, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Michael Jennings, et al. (filed on
March 17, 2011).

These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration to be
received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger is inadequate,
(2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal
protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases the
Company and North Acquisition, Inc., aided and abetted Frontier's
board of directors in breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's
shareholders.  The shareholder actions seek various remedies,
including enjoining the transaction from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, compensatory damages, and
costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits.

In the cases pending in Texas state court, on March 21, 2011,
plaintiff in the Walker lawsuit filed an amended petition alleging
that Frontier's current directors also breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose material information or making
materially inadequate disclosures concerning the proposed merger
in the registration statement on Form S-4.  On March 25, 2011, the
lawsuits pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
were consolidated under the style In re: Frontier Oil Corp., Cause
No. 2011-11451, and interim class counsel was appointed on
April 12, 2011.

With respect to the federal lawsuits, on March 24, 2011,
plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas filed a motion to
consolidate the Wilcox and Rhymes cases pending in that district
and to appoint interim lead counsel.  On April 7, 2011, plaintiffs
in the Wilcox and Rhymes cases filed substantially similar amended
complaints.  These lawsuits also allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
untrue statements of material fact and omitting to state material
facts necessary to make the statements that were made not
misleading in the registration statement on Form S-4.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend these and any future
lawsuits, as they believe that they have valid defenses to all
claims and that the lawsuits are entirely without merit.

Headquartered in Dallas, Holly Corporation is an independent
petroleum refiner operating three refineries consisting of
refinery facilities in Artesia and Lovington, N.M.; Woods Cross,
Utah and two refinery facilities in Tulsa, Okla.  As of Sept. 30,
2010, the Company's refineries had a combined crude capacity of
256,000 BPSD.


INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Competition Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend itself in class action
lawsuits repeating the same allegations made in the now-settled
lawsuit filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by AMD in June 2005
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Like the
AMD lawsuit, these class-action suits allege that Intel engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things, providing discounts and rebates to the
Company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors,
interfering with certain AMD product launches, and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups.  The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the Company's
microprocessors.  All of the federal class actions and the Kansas
and Tennessee state court class actions have been consolidated by
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware,
and the court has appointed a Special Master to address issues in
the litigation as assigned by the court.  In January 2010, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for
the Company's failure to preserve evidence.  This motion largely
copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation,
which has settled.  The plaintiffs in the coordinated actions also
moved for certification of a class of members who purchased
certain personal computers containing products sold by Intel.  In
July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation
denying the motion to certify a class.  The plaintiffs filed
objections to the Special Master's Class Report, and a hearing on
these objections was held in March 2011.  All California class
actions have been consolidated to the Superior Court of California
in Santa Clara County.  The plaintiffs in the California actions
have moved for class certification, which the Company is in the
process of opposing.  At the Company's request, the court in the
California actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until
after the Delaware District Court rules on the similar motion in
the coordinated actions.  The Company disputes the class-action
claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  Because the
outcome or range of outcomes in this matter cannot be reasonably
estimated, no estimate is provided.

Based in Santa Clara, Calif., Intel Corp. makes semiconductor
chips, and develops advanced integrated digital technology
platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the
computing and communications industries.


LOJACK CORP: Trial for Data Transmission Claim in "Rutti" Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
A trial for the data transmission claim in a class action lawsuit
filed against Lojack Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California is set for November
2011, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In April 2006, a suit entitled Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation,
Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an employee alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the
California Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action
status.  In September 2007, the Company's motion for summary
judgment was granted and the district court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's federal law claims.  The plaintiff appealed the
dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in August
2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment on all claims except as to the claim for
compensation for the required postliminary data transmission, or
the data transmission claim, for which the dismissal was vacated.
The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit
and on March 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a)
the claim for compensation for commuting under state law and (b)
the data transmission claim, which are the two remaining claims.
The plaintiff seeks to pursue the claim for compensation for
commuting time in the State Court Case.  The plaintiff moved for
conditional class certification for the data transmission claim
and on January 14, 2011, the District Court for the Central
District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.  Trial for this claim in federal court
is currently scheduled for November 2011.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


LOJACK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Remand Order
------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its appeal from an
order remanding a class action lawsuit filed by Mike Rutti, et
al., asserting state law claims to a state court, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in the federal
court case in September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff also
filed Mike Rutti, Gerson Anaya vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc.
comprising its state law claims in California State Court.  In
June 2009, the California State Court granted class certification
with respect to nine claims and denied class certification with
respect to five claims.  The Company appealed this decision and on
March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate Court granted the
Company's appeal in part, denying certification with respect to
certain claims and affirming certification with respect to other
claims, including claims related to meal and rest breaks,
postliminary data transmission, and time traveling to UPS stores.
There are currently six claims class certified in this State Court
Case.  In both the Federal and State Court Cases, the plaintiff,
on behalf of the class, seeks unpaid wages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees.

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove this State Court Case to Federal Court, thereby requesting
to consolidate both the Federal and State Court Cases to be heard
in Federal Court and the plaintiff filed for a motion to remand
the Federal Court Case to State Court.  On April 15, 2011, the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the State
Court Case to the California State Court.  On April 29, 2011, the
Company filed a petition for leave to appeal the decision to
remand.  The parties are currently awaiting the Ninth Circuit's
determination as to whether it will hear the appeal.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to these claims and intends to defend its interests
vigorously.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Okay on "Morin" Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit filed by Louis Morin, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 15, 2010, a suit entitled Louis Morin v. LoJack Corp.,
Inc., et al was filed by a consumer in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court of the State of California (Central District)
alleging, amongst other claims, violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section
17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty with
respect to LoJack Early Warning for motorcycles, and seeking class
action status.  On July 29, 2010, the Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District Court of
California.  On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss all claims, which was granted by the Court on
September 27, 2010, without prejudice.  The dismissal without
prejudice provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to amend its
complaint, and on October 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, for alleged fraud, violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section
17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty and
again sought class certification.  On November 12, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims and a motion to
strike certain claims.  On December 28, 2010, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss.  The plaintiff, on behalf of the
class, sought injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.  On
March 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and the Company filed its opposition to class
certification on March 28, 2011.

The parties participated in a mediation hearing on March 29, 2011
and reached a settlement to resolve all claims on a class-wide
basis.  The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final
court approval by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and notice to the class.  A hearing for
preliminary approval was scheduled for May 16, 2011.  Pursuant to
the terms of the settlement, the Company would revise its
disclosures in motorcycle related marketing materials and provide
class members with a twelve-month extension of the terms of the
Company's Limited Recovery Warranty.  The Company would also pay
an enhancement award of $20,000 to the named plaintiff and would
pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs up to $415,000.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would receive a
release by all potential class members who do not affirmatively
opt out of the settlement.  Nothing in the settlement agreement
constitutes an admission of any wrongdoing, liability or violation
of law by the Company.  Rather, the Company has signed the
settlement agreement to resolve the litigation, thereby
eliminating the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit against
Longtop Financial Technologies Limited alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Longtop
securities traded on an American stock exchange, including
Longtop's American Depository Shares, between October 25, 2007,
and May 16, 2011, inclusive.

The Lead Plaintiff deadline is July 22, 2011.  The case is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox
or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Longtop and
its senior executives reported increasing revenues and profits,
and that the Company's financial statements were reported in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles;
but, unknown to investors, the Company made materially false and
misleading statements to investors by misrepresenting and failing
to disclose that: 1) Defendants falsified certain financial
records in relation to cash at bank, loan balances, and sales
revenue; 2) the Company's management interfered with the audit
process and improperly detained audit files of the Company's
auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.; 3) Defendants
improperly understated the Company's expenses, and thereby
artificially inflated margins; 4) Longtop's financial statements
were not presented in accordance with GAAP; and 5) Defendants had
no reasonable basis for their positive statements about Longtop's
business and financial results.

The Complaint further alleges that starting on April 26, 2011,
through a series of partial disclosures, the truth about Longtop's
true financial condition was revealed and, as a result, Longtop's
ADSs declined from a closing price of $25.54 per share on
April 25, 2011, to close at $18.93 per share, the day before
trading in the ADSs was halted by the New York Stock Exchange, a
decline of $6.61 per share or approximately 26%.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than July 22, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com--
prosecutes investor class actions and actions involving financial
fraud.  The firm has offices in New York, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                     (212) 329-8571
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself in several remaining
class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or use of Vioxx,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Individual and putative class actions have been filed against Old
Merck in state and federal courts alleging personal injury and
economic loss with respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx.  All
those actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana before District Judge Eldon E.
Fallon.  A number of those actions filed in state court are
coordinated in separate coordinated proceedings in state courts in
California and Texas, and the counties of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada.

Of the plaintiff groups in the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits,
the vast majority were dismissed as a result of the Vioxx
Settlement Program.  As of March 31, 2011, approximately 30
plaintiff groups who were otherwise eligible for the Settlement
Program did not participate and their claims remain pending
against Old Merck.  In addition, the claims of approximately 120
plaintiff groups who were not eligible for the Settlement Program
remain pending against Old Merck.  A number of these 120 plaintiff
groups are subject to various motions to dismiss for failure to
comply with court-ordered deadlines.

There is one U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuit currently
scheduled for trial in 2011.  Of the cases that went to trial,
there are two unresolved post-trial appeals: Ernst v. Merck and
Garza v. Merck. Merck has previously disclosed the details
associated with these cases and the grounds for Merck's appeals.

There are still pending in various U.S. courts putative class
actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or
users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss.
In the MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.
On June 30, 2010, Old Merck moved to strike the class claims or
for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint,
which includes the cases, and briefing on that motion was
completed on September 23, 2010. The MDL court heard oral argument
on Old Merck's motion on October 7, 2010, and took it under
advisement.

On June 12, 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of
Missouri plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx. Trial is scheduled to begin in May 2012. In
addition, in Indiana, plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a
class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the
Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana. On April 1, 2010, a
Kentucky state court denied Old Merck's motion for summary
judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking
reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The
Kentucky Court of Appeals denied Old Merck's petition for a writ
of mandamus, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed that
ruling. The trial court entered an amended class certification
order on January 27, 2011, and Merck has appealed that ruling to
the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve
human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
filed against Old Merck relating to Vioxx remains pending,
according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various
putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal and
state securities laws have been filed against Old Merck and
various current and former officers and directors.  The Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler
for inclusion in a nationwide MDL, and have been consolidated for
all purposes.  In June 2010, Old Merck moved to dismiss the Fifth
Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities
action.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition in August 2010, and Old
Merck filed its reply in September 2010.  The motion is currently
pending before the district court.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits.  By stipulation, defendants are not required
to respond to these complaints until the resolution of any motions
to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve
human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Motions in Vioxx ERISA Suit Due June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit filed under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Old Merck are
due by June 30, 2011, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Various putative class actions have been filed in federal court
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Old
Merck and certain current and former officers and directors.
Those cases were consolidated in the Shareholder MDL before Judge
Chesler.  Fact discovery in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits closed on
September 30, 2010.  The Court has entered a schedule for expert
discovery, dispositive motions, and a pre-trial conference.
Motions for summary judgment must be filed by June 30, 2011.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve
human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits vs. Old Merck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend in class action lawsuits
filed against Old Merck in international jurisdictions, according
to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Old Merck has been named as a defendant in litigation relating to
Vioxx in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe and Israel.

In Canada, in 2006, the Superior Court in Quebec authorized a
class action on behalf of Vioxx users in Quebec who alleged
negligence and, in 2008, the Superior Court of Ontario certified a
class of Vioxx users in Canada, except those in Quebec and
Saskatchewan, who alleged negligence and an entitlement to elect
to waive the tort.  These procedural decisions in the Canadian
litigation do not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and
litigation in Canada remains in an early stage.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve
human and animal health.


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses "Stratte-McClure" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action,
which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming Morgan Stanley and
certain present and former senior executives as defendants and
asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The
amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Subject to
certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf
of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares
of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to
December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such
purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related
losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's
disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On
April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 4, 2011, the court presiding over the action styled Joel
Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in WaMu Securities Suit to be Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in
several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of
the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and
mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley
related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other
mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained various material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through
certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings
underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-
defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of
these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have
filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.

In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order
certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the
Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual
Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an
underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of
the securities covered by the class certified by the court.

Morgan Stanley disclosed that it reached on March 29, 2011, an
agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs in the action
styled In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, to
settle this litigation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The settlement agreement has not yet been completed and will be
subject to court approval.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" 401(k) Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend a purported class action filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan in New
York, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and
certain current and former officers and directors for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Action of 1974. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to
December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was
imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and
its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, interest and fees.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Robbins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
NFL and the Dallas Cowboys have asked a federal court judge to
dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Super Bowl
ticket holders who wound up with no seats for the game held
Feb. 6.

About 1,250 temporary seats at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington were
deemed unsafe just hours before the Feb. 6 game between the Green
Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers.  That forced about 850 ticket
holders to move to new seats and 400 others to watch the game from
standing-room locations.

A 26-page motion filed by the league and the team on May 26 says
the ticket holders aren't entitled to compensation beyond what
they've already been offered.  It also says the ticket holders
weren't defrauded as a result of the fiasco.

The motion states that the NFL could revoke ticket-holding
privileges as long as it provided a refund.  In this instance, the
league said it went "beyond its contractual obligations" when it
offered displaced fans the actual prices they paid for their
tickets as well as all documented travel, lodging and meal
expenses

According to the motion, the NFL and the Cowboys didn't know until
just before the game that the temporary seats would be inadequate
and worked into the afternoon that day to deal with the issue.

"Defendants had nothing to gain by tricking ticket holders," the
filing says.  "With the eyes of the world focusing on the Super
Bowl, it is implausible to suggest that defendants intended what
would obviously be a public relations nightmare."

Michael Avenatti, Esq., a Los Angeles attorney who is representing
the ticket holders, said the motion represents flawed thinking by
the league and the team.

"The defendants have a fundamental misunderstanding of what their
obligations are under the law," he said.

Mr. Avenatti said more than 3,000 people are covered by the class
action, which includes ticket holders who discovered at the game
that their seats did not allow them to see the stadium's giant
video board.


NEW LEAF: Continues to Defend Lead-Related Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc., was notified that it
was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a
class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly
failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.
The Company has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney
General of California.

To date, no trial date has been set.  The Company is currently
investigating the merits of the allegation and is unable to
determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of
possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 23, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.


PHI INC: Continues to Defend Superior Offshore Suit
---------------------------------------------------
PHI, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
filed by Superior Offshore International Inc., according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA
Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA
Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on
the docket of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009,
on behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the
defendants at any time from January 1, 2001 through December 31,
2005.  The suit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to fix,
maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services
during the time frame in violation of the federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages, injunctive
relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On September 14, 2010, the
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss filed on September 4,
2009, and dismissed the complaint.  On November 30, 2010, the
court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, limited
discovery to the new allegations, and established a schedule for
briefing dispositive motions in February 2011.  The permitted
discovery is now complete, and defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on February 11, 2011.  Management is unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the case because
a dispositive motion is pending, and discovery relating to
potential damages has not commenced.

PHI Inc. -- http://www.phihelico.com/-- provides helicopter
transportation services in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also provides
helicopter services to the oil and gas industry internationally,
and to non-oil and gas customers, such as health care providers
and United States governmental agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation. It also provides air medical transportation
for hospitals and emergency service agencies, where it operates as
an independent provider of medical services.  PHI also provides
helicopter maintenance and repair services to certain customers.
At Dec. 31, 2009, the company owned or operated approximately 255
aircraft domestically and internationally.  PHI operates in three
segments: Oil and Gas, Air Medical and Technical Services.


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------------
PrivateBancorp, Inc.'s request to dismiss a purported class action
filed before a federal court in Illinois has been fully briefed.

On October 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009. Certain of the
Company's current and former executive officers and directors and
firms that participated in the underwriting of the Company's June
2008 and May 2009 public offerings of common stock are also named
as defendants in the litigation. On January 25, 2011, the City of
New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and State-Boston
Retirement System were together named as the lead plaintiff, and
an amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2011. The amended
complaint alleges various claims of securities law violations
against certain of the named defendants relating to disclosures
the Company made during the class period in filings under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and rescission. The Company filed a motion to dismiss
seeking dismissal of all counts in the amended complaint on March
25, 2011. The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss
on April 29, 2011. The motion to dismiss is expected to be fully
briefed by May 19, 2011 and the court will undertake consideration
of this motion thereafter. At this stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate potential financial impact of the
lawsuit on the Company, according to the Company's May 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

PrivateBancorp, Inc.'s sole bank subsidiary The PrivateBank and
Trust Company provides customized business and personal financial
services to middle-market companies and business owners,
executives, entrepreneurs and families in all the markets and
communities it serves.


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accused of Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., accused Radient Pharmaceuticals
Corporation of violating federal securities laws with respect to
the Company's clinical studies of Onko-Sure(R) test kit, according
to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On March 11, 2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., filed a class action
suit, alleging the Company violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the relationship between the Company and third
parties involved in its clinical studies of Onko-Sure(R) test kit.

The Company believes there is no basis to the suit filed by The
Rosen Law Firm and it is defending the lawsuit vigorously.


RAWLINGS COMPANY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey LLP disclosed that a jury in Oldham County,
Kentucky returned a verdict on May 27 in favor of The Rawlings
Company, in a class action brought against Rawlings and its
founder George Rawlings on behalf of current and former medical
claims auditors.  The class action alleged that the company
misclassified hundreds of employees as exempt from overtime laws,
and improperly failed to pay them for overtime.  The class action
sought millions of dollars of overtime pay and penalties, for a
period of more than 7 years.  After a three-week trial, the jury
rejected the claims made by the class, and found that the Rawlings
employees were properly classified as exempt.

The Rawlings Company, based in LaGrange, Kentucky, is the
recognized leader in providing audit and subrogation services to
the healthcare industry.  Rawlings founder George R. Rawlings was
a key witness at the trial.

Rawlings was represented in the trial by Susman Godfrey LLP, a 90
lawyer firm that specializes in business litigation on behalf of
both plaintiffs and defendants.  The case was tried by Susman
Godfrey partners Neal Manne, Esq. (Houston), Shawn Rabin, Esq.
(New York) and Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. (Los Angeles).  After the
verdict, Mr. Manne said on the Oldham County Courthouse steps, "We
are delighted that the jury found in favor of Rawlings.  Most
class actions settle, including ones like this that challenge
whether employees should be hourly or salaried.  It took guts for
Mr. Rawlings to stand his ground, and let us try this case to the
jury.  We are proud that he chose Susman Godfrey lawyers to defend
him and his company in this landmark case."


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action
filed in California, shareholders claim Research in Motion
inflated its share price from Dec. 16, 2010, through April 28 with
false and misleading statements.


RURAL/METRO CORP: Defending Suits Challenging Warburg Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits challenging Rural/Metro
Corporation's merger with an affiliate of Warburg Pincus LLC are
pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, each member of the Board of Directors, Warburg
Pincus, WP Rocket Holdings LLC -- the Parent, and Merger Sub, Inc.
are named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits brought
by alleged stockholders of the Company challenging the Company's
proposed merger with Parent. The stockholder actions were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Llorens v.
Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011) and in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa (Joanna
Jervis v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011).
Robert E. Wilson, a former member of the Board of Directors, is
also named as a defendant in the Llorens stockholder action. The
stockholder actions allege, among other things, that the members
of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the Company's public stockholders and were aided and abetted by
certain of the defendants, and seek, among other things, to enjoin
the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon
terms.

Rural/Metro Corporation provides ambulance services, which consist
primarily of emergency and non-emergency medical services, to
approximately 400 communities in 20 states within the United
States.


SATYAM COMPUTER: Posts 4Q Net Loss After Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketaki Gokhale, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Satyam
Computer Services Ltd. fell the most in more than three months in
Mumbai trading after reporting a fourth-quarter loss on May 23,
missing analyst estimates for a profit after settling a class-
action lawsuit.

The software exporter dropped 6% to INR72.30 in Mumbai trading,
the biggest intraday decline since Feb. 9.  Net loss was INR3.27
billion (US$72 million) in the three months ending March 31,
according to a statement to the Bombay Stock Exchange on
May 23.  The average of 7 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg
was for a profit of INR927 million.

Satyam, embroiled in India's biggest corporate fraud probe, in
February agreed to pay $125 million to settle a U.S. shareholder
lawsuit over alleged securities violations in federal court in New
York.  The company also reported its third annual loss since
former chairman, Ramalinga Raju, disclosed in January 2009 that he
overstated assets by more than $1 billion.

The company fell 4% to INR73.85 as of 1:39 p.m. on May 23 in
Mumbai trading.

Mr. Raju was charged with faking invoices, falsifying accounts,
inflating the company's tax liability and understating debt in the
fraud.  India's top court canceled his bail in October.

Net loss was INR1.473 billion in the year ended March 31.  Sales
dropped 6% to INR51.45 billion.


SCORES HOLDING: Prepares Documents to Settle "Siri Diaz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement documents are currently being prepared in connection
with Scores Holding Company, Inc.'s agreement to settle for
$450,000 the class action lawsuit filed by Siri Diaz, according to
the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the Company and other defendants alleging
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri Diaz et al.
v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a
Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores
East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New York,
Judge Richard M. Berman)).  On November 6, 2007, plaintiffs served
an amended purported class action and collective action complaint,
naming dancers and servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging
the same violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.  On
February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended complaint
adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the action to
persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  The amended
complaint alleged that the Company and the other defendants were
"an integrated enterprise" and that the Company jointly employed
the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability for
the alleged wage/hour violations.  On behalf of the Company and
the other defendants, the Company filed a motion to dismiss that
portion of the Complaint that asserted State law class action
allegations; the Company also moved to dismiss the claims of two
of the named plaintiffs for failure to appear for depositions.  At
the same time, plaintiffs moved for conditional certification
under the federal law for a class of the servers, bartenders and
dancers; the Company opposed that motion.

On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion
to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of
servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have
worked at Scores East since October 2004.  On May 29, 2008, the
Company filed an answer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
On September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third amended
complaint adding in two individual defendants who are alleged to
be employers under the state and federal wage claims.  The Company
disputes that it is a proper defendant in this action and it
disputes that it violated the federal and state labor laws, and
further disputes that the dancers are "employees" subject to the
federal and state wage and hour laws.

Two of the defendants have been dismissed without prejudice and
the Company has agreed upon a settlement amount of $450,000 that
will be contributed among and between all of the remaining
defendants.  The settlement documents are currently in the process
of being prepared.


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal Briefs Stayed Pending Dismissal Plea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding appeals on
class definition is stayed pending determination of a motion to
dismiss those appeals in class actions filed in New York,
according to Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.'s May 9, 2011,
Amended Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 13, 2004, the Southern District of New York granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in six "focus cases"
out of the more than 300 consolidated class actions. The Company
was not named in any of the six "focus cases." On August 31, 2005,
the Southern District of New York issued an order of preliminary
approval of a settlement proposal among the investors in the
plaintiff class, the Issuer Defendants, including the Company, and
the Issuer Defendants' insurance carriers. The principal
components of the Issuers Settlement were: (1) a release of all
claims against the Issuer Defendants and their directors, officers
and certain other related parties arising out of the alleged
wrongful conduct in the amended complaint; (2) the assignment to
the plaintiffs of certain of the Issuer Defendants' potential
claims against the Underwriters; and (3) a guarantee by the
insurers to the plaintiffs of the difference between $1.0 billion
and any lesser amount recovered by the plaintiffs from the
Underwriter Defendants. The payments were to be charged to each
Issuer Defendant's insurance policy on a pro rata basis. The
plaintiffs appealed the Issuers Settlement to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On December 5, 2006, the
Second Circuit reversed the order, holding that plaintiffs could
not satisfy the predominance requirement for a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action. On June 25, 2007, in light
of the Second Circuit's reversal of the class certification order
and its subsequent denial of plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing
or rehearing en banc, the Southern District of New York entered a
stipulation between plaintiffs and the Issuer Defendants,
terminating the proposed Issuers Settlement which the Southern
District of New York had preliminarily approved on August 31,
2005.

On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six
"focus cases" and amended master allegations in the consolidated
actions. On November 13, 2007, the Underwriter Defendants and
Issuer Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints in the
six "focus cases." On March 26, 2008, the Southern District of New
York granted in part the motion as to a subset of plaintiffs'
Section 11 claims (alleging civil liabilities on account of false
registration statements), but denied the motion as to plaintiffs'
other claims.

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification with respect to the six focus cases, based on newly
proposed class definitions. On October 10, 2008, at plaintiffs'
request, the Southern District of New York ordered the withdrawal
without prejudice of plaintiffs' renewed motion, which had been
fully briefed and was sub judice.

On January 7, 2008, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion (in
which the Issuer Defendants joined) to strike class allegations in
26 of the consolidated cases, including the case against the
Company, on the ground that plaintiffs lacked a putative class
representative in those cases at the time of their May 30, 2007
oral motion. On May 13, 2008, the Southern District of New York
issued an order granting the motion in part and striking certain
of the class allegations relating to the Section 10b-5 claims in 8
of the 26 actions, including the Section 10b-5 claim against SBS.
The order also requires plaintiffs to make certain disclosures
with respect to the putative class representatives in the
remaining 18 actions. Once the disclosures are filed, the
Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants may seek
clarification of the Southern District of New York's May 13, 2008
order with respect to the status of the remaining 10b-5-related
class allegations in the other 8 actions, including the SBS
action, as well as the status of the Section 11-related class
allegations.

On June 11, 2009, pursuant to a motion filed on April 2, 2009, the
Southern District of New York issued a preliminary order of
approval of a settlement of all of the consolidated cases,
including the case against SBS. On September 19, 2009, the
Southern District of New York conducted a hearing regarding the
final approval of the settlement of all consolidated cases and, on
October 5, 2009, issued an opinion finally approving the
settlement. The settlement, which is subject to appeal, will
result in a release of all claims against the Underwriter
Defendants and the Issuer Defendants, and their officers and
directors, in exchange for an aggregate sum of approximately $600
million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of the
class plaintiffs. The Company's and the Individual Defendants'
share of the Settlement Amount would be fully funded by insurance.

On October 23, 2009, several objecting members of the class filed
a petition for leave in the Second Circuit to appeal the Southern
District of New York's class definition for purposes of the
October 5, 2009 settlement. Several Objectors have also filed
notices of appeal in the Second Circuit from the Southern District
of New York's order approving the settlement. On October 29, 2009
plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the Objectors'
petition. On November 2, 2009, the Underwriter Defendants filed a
response to the Objectors petition, taking no position on the
petition, but noting that the classes were approved for settlement
purposes only and reserving the right to oppose class
certification in the event the settlement is not finally approved.
The Issuer Defendants have not taken a position on the appeals.

On October 7, 2010, all but two of the Objectors entered into a
stipulation with plaintiffs withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice. The two remaining Objectors have since submitted briefs
to the Second Circuit in support of their appeals. On December 8,
2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the
remaining Objectors' appeals based on alleged violations of the
Second Circuit's rules. The motion is fully briefed and is sub
judice. The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding the
remaining Objectors' appeals is stayed pending determination of
the motion to dismiss.

Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., is the largest publicly traded
Hispanic-controlled media and entertainment company in the United
States.


STATE STREET: Continues to Defend "Deceptive Practice" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative
class action alleging that the rates at which its subsidiary bank
executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and
deceptive act, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Two clients have commenced litigation against the Company,
including a putative class action filed in February 2011 in
federal court in Boston that seeks unspecified damages, including
treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed
foreign exchange transactions through State Street. The putative
class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which
State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an
unfair and deceptive practice and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

State Street Corporation is the parent company of State Street
Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank.


STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself in three
shareholder-related class action lawsuits before a federal court
in Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Three shareholder-related class action complaints are currently
pending in federal court in Boston. One complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of State Street shareholders. The two other
complaints purport to be brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who
invested in the program's State Street common stock investment
option. The complaints variously allege violations of the federal
securities laws and ERISA in connection with the Company's foreign
exchange trading business, its investment securities portfolio and
its asset-backed commercial paper conduit program.

State Street Corporation is the parent company of State Street
Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation is awaiting a federal court's
ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative securities class action
in Washington, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 9,
2010. On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to October 15, 2009.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to
disclose the extent of the Company's delinquent commercial real
estate, construction and land development loans, properly record
losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan losses,
thereby causing the Company's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously. On August 30, 2010, the Company moved to
dismiss the Complaint. On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing,
the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The court has
not yet issued an order on the motion. Failure by Sterling to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or estimable in amount.

Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane,
Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank,
which commenced operations in 1983.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Washington has not yet entered an order on
Sterling Financial Corporation and its subsidiary's motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's May 9,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and
Sterling Savings Bank, as well as certain of Sterling's current
and former officers and directors. The two complaints were merged
in a Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 2010 in the
same court. The Complaint does not name all of individuals named
in the prior complaints, but it is expected that additional
defendants will be added. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under sections 404 and
405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, with respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee
Savings and Investment Plan and the FirstBank Northwest Employee
Stock Ownership Plan. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans
in Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by
investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew
or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices. The business practices at issue include
alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged
inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
90+-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising
loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets. The putative class periods are October 22, 2007 to the
present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to
November 14, 2008 for the ESOP class. The Complaint seeks damages
of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs. Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously. A hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred
on March 22, 2011, with the court indicating that it would take
the motion under submission. The court has not yet issued an order
on the motion. Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the Complaint could have a
material adverse effect on Sterling's business, results of
operations, and financial condition. Currently, a loss resulting
from these claims is not considered probable or estimable in
amount.

Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane,
Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank,
which commenced operations in 1983.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Request for Review Will Be Heard Today
----------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation's request for discretionary review
of an order denying its motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative
class action will be heard today, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in
the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington, purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of Sterling, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors. On August 2,
2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging, among other
claims, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleges that
the individual defendants failed to prevent Sterling from issuing
improper financial statements, maintain a sufficient allowance for
loan and lease losses, and establish effective credit risk
management and oversight mechanisms regarding Sterling's
commercial real estate, construction and land development loans,
losses and reserves recorded for impaired loans, and accounting
for goodwill and deferred tax assets. The Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits,
equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, accountants' and
experts' fees, costs, and expenses. Because the Complaint is
derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from
Sterling. However, Sterling may be required throughout the
pendency of the action to advance the legal fees and costs
incurred by the defendant officers and directors. On September 13,
2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint. The hearing on
Sterling's motion to dismiss was held on January 14, 2011. On
February 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying Sterling's
motion to dismiss in its entirety. On April 12, 2011, Sterling
filed a request for discretionary review with the Washington Court
of Appeals. The appellate court commissioner will hold a hearing
on the request on June 1, 2011. If the request is granted,
Sterling will be permitted to appeal the court's order denying the
motion to dismiss.

Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane,
Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank,
which commenced operations in 1983.


STEVE MADDEN: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Tahvilian" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Madden, Ltd., is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement in a class action captioned Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al.
v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., which hearing
was scheduled May 10, 2011, according to the Company's May 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No.
BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws. The
parties submitted the dispute to private mediation and, on
August 31, 2010, reached a settlement on all claims. The court
has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. All claims
submitted by class members have been filed and the hearing on
final approval of the settlement is scheduled for May 10, 2011.
Based on the proposed settlement, the Company increased its
reserve for this claim from $1,000,000 to $2,750,000 in the third
quarter of 2010.

Steven Madden, Ltd., and its subsidiaries design, source, market
and sell fashion-forward footwear for women, men and children.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Awaits Rulings on Motions to Dismiss Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Networks, Inc., is awaiting rulings from the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals on motions to dismiss two appeals from
the order approving a settlement agreement resolving class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and several of
its officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering on October 21, 1999.  Some of the
complaints also include the underwriters for the Company's follow-
on offering on March 14, 2000.  An amended complaint, which is the
operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002, on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint
alleges claims against the Company, several of the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters for violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, primarily based
on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company
and several of the Individual Defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to
disclose (a) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the
Company's public offerings and (b) that certain of the
underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors
whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares
in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
It also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company
and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating
in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the
period in question.  The amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies. Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the court has ordered the parties to select up
to twenty "test" cases.  The Company's case has been selected as
one such test case.  As a result, among other things, the Company
will be subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in
the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the
Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because
these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.
On October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectuses.  The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares.  The court certified a class in the action against the
Company with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question.  On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision.
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel denied a petition for
rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs
could ask the district court to certify a more narrow class than
the one that was rejected.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action complaint against the Company.  The Company and the
underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 14, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims but
dismissed certain Section 11 claims against the Company.  On
June 5, 2008, the Court dismissed the remaining Section 11 claims
against the Company in response to a motion for partial
reconsideration.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's case, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the
Company.  On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement.  Two appeals by objectors to the settlement are
proceeding before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
December 8, 2010, and February 3, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
motions to dismiss the appeals.  The Second Circuit has not yet
ruled on the motions to dismiss.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  If
the settlement does not survive appeal, the litigation continues,
and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable to estimate
or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether
such damages would be greater than the Company's insurance
coverage, and whether such damages would have a material impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial condition in any
future period.


THE9 LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
The9 Limited, an online game operator and developer in China,
disclosed that on May 20, 2011, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing
with prejudice the Consolidated Complaint in Glaser v. The9 Ltd.
et al. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-08904-RJH,
a securities class action alleging that the company and certain
individual defendants engaged in securities fraud.  On March 28,
2011, the case was dismissed with leave to amend.  On May 12, 2011
the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal.

                        About The9 Limited

The9 Limited is an online game operator and developer in China.
The9 directly, or through affiliates, operates licensed MMORPGs
including Soul of The Ultimate Nation(TM), Atlantica and Kingdom
Heroes 2 Online in mainland China.  The9 has also obtained
exclusive licenses to operate other online games in mainland
China, including Seoyugi, Planetside 2 and Free Realms.  In
addition, The9 operates its proprietary MMORPG World of Fighter,
and web and SNS game Winning Goal, in mainland China and overseas.
The9 is also developing various proprietary games, including
ShenXianZhuan, Firefall and other MMORPG, web and SNS games.  In
2010, The9 established its Mobile Business Unit to focus on mobile
internet business.


THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over False Stats
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the debate over the accuracy of law school graduate employment
statistics -- or lack thereof -- has moved into court.

A 2008 graduate of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law filed a
class action in California state court on May 26, alleging that
the school committed fraud by misrepresenting the employment
statistics for its recent graduates.

"For more than 15 years, TJSL has churned out graduates, many of
whom have little or no hope of working as attorneys at any point
in their careers," the complaint reads.

According to the complaint, plaintiff Anna Alaburda graduated with
honors from the San Diego law school in 2008 and passed the
California bar examination, but has been unable to secure full-
time employment as an attorney.  She sent more than 150 resumes to
law firms and received only one job offer that was "less favorable
than non-law related jobs that were available to her."

Ms. Alaburda has been working as a document reviewer on a project-
by-project basis.  She accrued more than $150,000 in student loans
during her law school years, the complaint says.

Ms. Alaburda was lured to the school by statistics reported by
U.S. News & World Report in 2003 indicating that 80% of its
graduates were employed after nine months.  She "reasonably
interpreted these figures to mean that the vast majority of TJLS
graduates would find employment as full time attorneys."

"The foregoing statistics were false, misleading, and
intentionally designed to deceive all who read them," the
complaint reads.

In fact, the figures included all recent graduates who were in
part-time jobs or non-legal jobs, which is how law schools
calculate their "employed after nine months" figures for the
American Bar Association and U.S. News, the complaint says.

Law School Transparency, a nonprofit organization formed in 2010
to advocate for more accuracy and detail in law school employment
data, examined the job employment information posted on Thomas
Jefferson's Web site and concluded that it is far less detailed
than it could be.  The Web site says that 85% of the class of 2009
was employed after nine months of graduation -- and that the 58%
who went to law firms earned an average salary of $62,433.
However, the school collected information from only 86% of its
2009 graduates, meaning that slightly fewer than 73% of the class
of 2009 were known to be employed, the organization concluded.

Additionally, Law School Transparency calculated that few
graduates working full time in the private sector reported their
salaries.

Ms. Alaburda's suit is notable in part because it challenges the
legality of a practice that is nearly universal for law schools:
that of combining all graduates with jobs into one job statistic,
regardless of the nature of their employment.

Ms. Alaburda's attorney, Brian Procel of Los Angeles firm
Miller Barondess, declined to comment on May 27.

Beth Kransberger, associate dean for student affairs at Thomas
Jefferson, said that the school does not misrepresent its
employment statistics.

"The school has always followed the guidelines established by the
ABA.  We've always been accurate in what we report, and we've
always followed the system given to us by the ABA,"
Ms. Kransberger said.  "This lawsuit is very much about a larger
debate.  This is part of the debate about whether it's practical
to pursue a graduate degree in these difficult economic times."

The lawsuit cites correspondence from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer to
ABA President Stephen Zack pushing for more complete disclosure by
law schools; allegations in news reports that law schools cook
their employment numbers to improve their U.S. News rankings; and
the recent decline in employment opportunities and salaries for
lawyers.

The complaint estimates that there are upwards of 2,300 potential
members of the class, based on the number of students who attended
the school during the statutory period.  It alleges fraud and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The suit claims that compensatory damages to the class exceed $50
million.


TORCHMARK CORP: Trial in Arkansas Suit Set for Jan. 17, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit filed against Torchmark
Corporation's subsidiary in an Arkansas court is set for
January 17, 2012, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

United American was named as a defendant in purported class action
litigation originally filed on September 16, 2004, in the Circuit
Court of Saline County, Arkansas on behalf of the Arkansas
purchasers of association group health insurance policies or
certificates issued by United American through Heartland Alliance
of America Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. (Smith
and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-2).  The plaintiffs
asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract,
common law liability for non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary
duties, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas
law and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Insurance
Department.  Declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well
as actual and punitive damages were sought by the plaintiffs.  On
September 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
assert a nation-wide class, defined as all United American
insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospital
and Surgical Expense health insurance policy (Form HSXC) and an
individual supplemental term life insurance policy (Form RT85)
from Farm & Ranch through Heartland.  Defendants removed this
litigation to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (No. 4:05-cv-1382) but that Court remanded
the litigation back to the state court on plaintiffs' motion.  On
July 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
asserting a class defined as "all persons who, between January
1998 and the present, were residents of Arkansas, California,
Georgia, Louisiana or Texas, and purchased through Farm & Ranch:
(1) a health insurance policy issued by United American known as
Flexguard Plan, CS-1 Common Sense Plan, GSP Good Sense Plan, SHXC
Surgical & Hospital Expense Policy, HSXC 7500 Hospital/Surgical
Plan, MMXC Hospital/Surgical Plan, SMXC Surgical/Medical Expense
Plan and/or SSXC Surgical Safeguard Expense Plan, and (ii) a
membership in Heartland."  Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract, violation of Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
applicable consumer protection laws in other states, unjust
enrichment, and common law fraud.  Plaintiffs seek actual,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, equitable and
declaratory relief.  On September 8, 2009, the Saline County
Circuit Court granted the plaintiff's motion certifying the class.
On October 7, 2009, United American filed its notice of appeal of
the class certification and subsequently filed its appellate brief
on April 8, 2010.  On December 2, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the lower court's decision to certify the class.

Discovery is completed and trial has been scheduled for
January 17, 2012.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
filed an Ohio court, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, purported class action litigation was filed
against American Income and Torchmark in the District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Fitzhugh v. American Income Life
Insurance Company and Torchmark Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv-
00533).  The plaintiff, a formerly independently contracted
American Income agent, alleges that American Income intentionally
misclassified its agents as independent contractors rather than as
employees in order to escape minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as to avoid
payroll taxes, workers compensation premiums and other benefits
required to be provided by employers.  Monetary damages in the
amount of unpaid compensation plus liquidated damages and
prejudgment interest as well as injunctive and declaratory relief
is sought by the plaintiff on behalf of the purported class.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Harel Pia
Mutual Fund alleging violations of California securities laws by
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates remains
pending, according to Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust's
May 25, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period
April 1 to 30, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates had been
named as defendants in a putative bondholder class action, Harel
Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the
Central District of California on April 8, 2010, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The plaintiff filed a
voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
the defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.  At this time, TMCC believes
that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust.


TOYOTA AUTO: Continues to Defend Sudden Acceleration Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust continues to defend
itself against lawsuits over sudden unintended acceleration in
certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles, according to the Company's
May 25, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period
April 1 to 30, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were named
as defendants in the consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re:
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation (United States
District Court, Central District of California) seeking damages
and injunctive relief as a result of alleged sudden unintended
acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  On August 2,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation that does not name TMCC as a defendant.
On November 17, 2010, the court ordered that all omitted claims
and theories are deemed dismissed without prejudice.  In addition,
the court has permitted alleged classes of foreign plaintiffs to
file complaints naming TMCC and related entities as defendants.
On April 4, 2011, the court issued a tentative ruling dismissing
TMCC from the foreign plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

A parallel action was filed against TMCC and certain affiliates on
March 12, 2010, by the Orange County District Attorney.  On
February 18, 2011, the Orange County District Attorney filed an
amended complaint in which TMCC was not named.  The parties
entered into a stipulation and tolling agreement under which the
plaintiff may name TMCC within the next year if new facts are
discovered.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.  At this time, TMCC believes
that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust.


VELTI PLC: Unit Accused of Violating California Consumers Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Velti plc's subsidiary, Mobclix Inc., is accused of violating the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through consumers'
downloading of a software application for Android-based smart
phones, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form F-1 filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In re iPhone Application Litigation is a purported nationwide
class action filed in the Northern District of California against
Apple Inc. and certain other parties, including the Company's
subsidiary, Mobclix Inc.  The action alleges that the defendants,
through the promotion of software applications, or "apps",
developed, marketed, and provided or sold for use with Apple's
devices, improperly and unlawfully access, capture, alter and/or
use personal information they obtained from "app" users.  Numerous
other class actions filed in state and federal courts throughout
the United States allege similar claims related to "apps" sold for
use with devices using the Apple iOS or Google Android operating
systems.  Mobclix has been named in at least one of the actions
regarding Android devices and "apps" compatible with Google's
Android operating system (King v. Google Inc., et al., currently
pending in the Northern District of California).

On May 21, 2011, the Company received a letter alleging violations
of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through downloading
by consumers of an "app" for Android-based smart phones.  Because
the filed actions are in the very early stages, and due to the
inherent uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the
Company is unable to reasonably assess the likelihood of any
particular outcome of these litigations (or potential litigations)
at this time.


WALTER ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Moore" Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc., and its subsidiary remain defendants in a
putative class action titled Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc.,
and Walter Coke, Inc., in Alabama, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and Walter Coke have been named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore on April 26, 2011, in the federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class
action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged
presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and
other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current
and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the companies
and/or their predecessors. This action is still in the earliest
stages of litigation. Based on initial evaluation, management of
the Company and Walter Coke believe that both procedural and
substantive defenses are available and applicable, and
accordingly, the companies expect to vigorously defend this
matter. As such, management believes that presently there is no
reasonable basis for management to form a view with respect to the
probability of liability in this matter.

Walter Energy is a publicly traded "pure play" metallurgical coal
producer for the global steel industry. The Company also produces
steam coal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke and
coal bed methane gas.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on May 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of WMS
Industries Inc. who purchased between November 1, 2010, and
April 11, 2011.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements or failing to disclose material information
related to the Company's business and operations, forecasted
financial results.  In particular, the Complaint alleges that: (a)
the Company's "execution" on business operations was faltering and
could not support revenue and profitability guidance; (b) the
defendants failed to disclose that the industry-wide weak
replacement cycle had negatively impacted WMS' sales and margin
growth and could not be offset by the Company's flawed execution
and demand for WMS gaming machines; and (c) as a result,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company did not have
reasonable basis for its revenue and margin forecasts for the 2011
fiscal year.

If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in WMS stock,
you have until July 25, 2011, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery is
not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  To obtain additional information about your rights,
contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or
by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://www.zlk.com/wms-industries-wms.html

Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities
litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud and represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder
litigation.


XL GROUP: Execution of Formal Settlement in MDL Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The execution of a formal settlement to resolve a proposed class
action captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation involving XL
Group plc's subsidiaries remains pending, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-
5184, filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new
defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich
Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL-Cayman.
In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted
statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust
laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007, the
District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice
and, by Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2007, the District
Court dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs
then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in
large part the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit
reversed the dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims
alleged against several defendants including the XL Defendants but
remanded those claims to the District Court for further
consideration of their adequacy. In light of its reversal and
remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also
reversed the District Court's dismissal (based on the District
Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction) of the
state-law claims against all defendants. On October 1, 2010 the
remaining defendants including the XL Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law claims. The
motions have been fully briefed and await the District Court's
decision. In March 2011, a majority of the remaining defendants,
including the XL Defendants, reached an agreement in principle
(subject to the execution of a formal Settlement Agreement and
District Court approval) to settle the Class Action. If the
parties execute a formal Settlement Agreement and apply for and
obtain District Court approval of the proposed settlement, the XL
Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate settlement
payment will be $6.75 million and, upon entry by the District
Court of a final order approving the settlement, the XL Defendants
will be dismissed from the Class Action with prejudice.

XL Group plc is organized into three operating segments:
Insurance, Reinsurance and Life operations.


YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Settles Class Action for $3.6 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Amruta Sabnis, writing for Reuters, reports that Canadian gold
miner Yukon-Nevada Gold said it agreed to settle a class action
lawsuit brought against it by former employees for $3.6 million.

The company said the settlement includes setting aside money for
the remaining 50% of the severance payments under the WARN Act,
medical costs and certain 401-K contributions for approximately
394 employees laid off from Jerritt Canyon mine in Nevada in 2008.

"The funds, previously placed on deposit by the company, are to be
distributed by a third party claims administrator pursuant to the
settlement procedures and the court processes," the company said
in a statement.

Yukon-Nevada, which owns gold, silver, zinc and copper assets in
Canada's Yukon territory and British Columbia and in Nevada in the
U.S., said the settlement is yet to be approved by the court and
it expects the distribution process to take several months to
complete.

Shares of the company closed at 56 Canadian cents on May 25 on the
Toronto Stock Exchange.


ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $2.1 Million Settlement Payment in "Berg" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. paid out $2.1 million in connection with its
settlement of a putative class action lawsuit commenced by Chandra
Berg, et al., alleging Labor Code violations, according to the
Company's May 24, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

A putative class action, Chandra Berg et al. v. Zumiez Inc., was
filed against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court under
case number BC408410 on February 25, 2009.  The Complaint alleged
causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages to present and
former store managers in California, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure to reimburse
retail employees for clothing required by the Company's dress
code, failure to reimburse retail employees for business expenses,
failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due
at the time of termination, unfair business practices and
declaratory relief.  Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
April 2, 2010, which added an additional plaintiff/class
representative and a new cause of action for penalties for alleged
Labor Code violations under the Private Attorneys General Act.
The Company filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint and
conducted discovery.  On February 8, 2010, the Company attended a
mediation wherein no settlement was reached.  Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification, and the Company filed its
opposition to class certification.  Plaintiffs' reply papers were
filed on August 2, 2010.

On September 1, 2010, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle.  The settlement agreement is $2.1 million,
which includes settlement awards to class members, incentive
payments to the two plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and costs and
claims administration costs.  The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on November 3, 2010, and granted final
approval of the settlement on February 23, 2011.  The claims
administrator has distributed the settlement funds pursuant to the
Court's order and the settlement agreement.  The accrued charge of
$2.1 million was recorded in selling, general and administrative
expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of operations
for the three months ended July 31, 2010, and was paid out on
March 10, 2011.




                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug,
Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *