CAR_Public/110603.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 109

                             Headlines

99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Strike Portions of Amended Suit
99 CENTS: Faces "Niemiller" Suit in California for Discrimination
ADVOCAT INC: Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in Arkansas
AGL RESOURCES: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
AIRGAS INC: Court Dismisses Claims Over Air Products Tender Offer

AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
AMB PROPERTY: Enters Deals to Resolve Two Merger-Related Suits
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Enters Stipulation of Securities Class Actions
AMERICA SERVICE: Tenn. Court Dismisses Valitas Merger-Related Suit
AMERICAN APPAREL: Court Stays Discovery in Calif. Class Action

AMERICAN LASER: Faces Class Action Over Unlicensed Estheticians
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Amended Securities Suit
ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Alabama
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Discrimination Class Action
BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

BEAZER HOMES: Still Faces Florida Homeowners' Class Action
BELL SPORTS: Recalls 33,600 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Hazard
CALAMOS ASSET: Brown's Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Ruling on Proposed Class Action Dismissal
CALAMOS ASSET: "Rutgers" Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending

CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Still Pending in Oklahoma
CHINA GREEN: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Shareholder Suit
COWEN GROUP: Enters MOU to Settle Suits Over LaBranche Merger
COWEN GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Mallen" Suit

CVB FINANCIAL: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
DANVERS BANCORP: Massachusetts Court Stays "Swift" Suit
DARIUS TSATSI: Among Defendants in Class Action Over Diagnosis
DELL INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Settlement Still Pending
DELL INC: Settles with Plaintiffs in "Brazil" Class Action Suit

DELPHI FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Manitoba Class Action
FIRST NIAGARA: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. NewAlliance Merger
HANSEN MEDICAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit

HANSEN NATURAL: New Judge Takes Pending Motions Under Submission
HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HARBIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
HECKMANN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suit
HONDA CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach

HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 17,900 Remote Control Model Helicopters
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Signs MOU to End Merger-Related Suits
INTL FCSTONE: Discovery in Class Action in Missouri Ongoing
INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
JAMES LATHAM PETERS: To Face Class Action Over Hep. C Infections

JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Suit vs. i2 Tech
JET WIN FOOD: Recalls Contaminated Taiwanese Beverage
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Race Discrimination Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Is Ongoing in Suit Against OCD Unit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing in McNeil-Related Suit Set for June 29
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Monk" Suit Remains Pending in New Jersey
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff Appeals From Suit Dismissal
L-1 IDENTITY: Negotiates With Parties to Resolve Shareholder Suit
L-1 IDENTITY: Remains a Defendant in Old Digimarc Litigation

LAS VEGAS SAND: Consolidated Class Action Still Pending in Nevada
LOCAL.COM CORP: DGLP-Related Suit in California Dismissed
LOGITECH INT'L: Intends to Defend Shareholder Class Actions
MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Ordered to File Consolidated Complaint
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Stayed

MEDIFAST INC: Continues to Defend Two Class Suits in Maryland
MERIAL LTD: Sued for Firing Head Over Class Action Document
META FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Still Faces "GACU" Class Action
META FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Iowa
MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending

MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Song-Beverly Act Class Suits
MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated Wage Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Consumer Law Violation Suits
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Stock Option Litigation
MURPHY OIL: Faces Class Action Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions

NELNET INC: Plea for Reconsideration in "Bais Yaakov" Suit Pending
NEVADA HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS: Sued Over Collection Fees
NORTHWEST PIPE: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss Suit to Ends
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Court to Hear Summary Judgment Plea on June 17
OLD SECOND BANCORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit

OPTIONSEXPRESS: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Actions
PANTRY INC: Still Faces 7 Class Action Lawsuits in Kansas Court
PARNON ENERGY: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Crude Prices
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Awaits Final Decision in Spill-Related Suit
POLO RALPH LAUREN: $1.9-Mil. Settlement Reserve Reversed to Income

POLO RALPH LAUREN: Records $4-Mil. Settlement Reserve in 2010
PROLOGIS: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Colo. & Md.
PROSHARES TRUST: Consolidated Suit Remains Pending in New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend Age Discrimination Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Remains Pending in New York

RADIAN GROUP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suit vs. Radian Guaranty
RENTECH INC: Awaits Court Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Asserts NY Class Suit Allegations Has No Merit
ROSETTA STONE: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action in California
ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia

ROVI CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Burke" Suit Still Pending
ROVI CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sonic Acquisition
ROVI CORP: Gets Final Okay to Settle Shareholder Suits vs. Unit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in EEOC Suit vs. Sterling
SKYPE: Sued Over False Claims on "Unlimited" Time Subscriptions

STERLING BANCSHARES: Plaintiff Dismisses Class Action in Texas
SOUZA CRUZ: Sao Paulo Court Denies Indemnification Claims
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Defends Two Suits Over Financial Crisis in Ga.
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Class Suits Remain Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in California

TELENAV INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Is Aug. 12
TEXAS: Judge Allows Foster Care Class Action to Proceed
TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suits Over Merger With Talon
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in Wisconsin
UNITED BANKSHARES: Faces Class Action Over Overdraft Fees

UNITED FIRE: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Suits vs. Mercer Merger
UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Hearing Likely Jan. 12
VANGUARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suits in Texas and Michigan

VOLCOM INC: PPR Merger Prompts Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
WARNER MUSIC GROUP: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in New York
WEBMD HEALTH: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kaye" Class Action
WEBMD HEALTH: Dismissed From "Rodimer" Class Suit in California
WELLS FARGO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California

WESTINGHOUSE: Discovery in California Class Action Suit Ongoing
WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Court Okay of Gender Discrimination Suit Deal
WILLIS GROUP: Still Defends Stanford-Related Lawsuits
YAHOO INC: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Still Pending


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Still Subject to Exposure-Related Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Still Facing Burik Lawsuit in Md.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Subject to Kraska's Action in Md.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Facing Love Injury Action in Md.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Subject to Schoppert Claim in Md.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Vector Group Ltd. Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 530 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Unit Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Records 2,250 MARDOC Actions Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Corp. Has $2MM ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Posts $1.8MM for Leslie Indemnity
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. ConEd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $13.9MM Net A&E Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Remains Defendant in "Premises" Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Faces Cases in Canadian Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $277,000 for Gradall Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing Against Burlington
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Okays Albany Int'l. Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment Partly Okayed in Ashworth
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Tarrance's Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Exposure Linked to Caversham Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yardley Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacobs Exposure Lawsuit Filed Against 42 Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Yorkshire Workers to Learn About Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Humber Locals to Learn About Asbestos Awareness

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Filed on May 9 in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pandocchi Claim v. 103 Firms Filed Last May 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apperley Widow Seeks Help to Claim Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Mason's Kin Seeks Help in Payout Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Divito Claim v. Afton, Others Filed May 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMD Ind. Penalized $1.25MM for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dean's Ford Penalized $132T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Corp. Seeks to Vacate $322M Award

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 430 Property Damage Claims Open v. W.R. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Personal Injury Actions Still Pending v. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage From 54 Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $143.5MM A&E Remediation Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $52.3MM Libby Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,520 Open Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,169 Cases Open v. Central Hudson at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Long-Term Liabilities Still at $66MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Still Has 26T Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Posts $18MM March 31 Rockwell Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside, Remands Crane's Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fobbs Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates, Remands Goshorn's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Decision in Florez Claim




                             *********

99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Strike Portions of Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is awaiting a ruling on its motion to strike
portions of the amended complaint in the consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging violations of consumer laws in California,
according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 2, 2011.

Leonard Morales and Steven Calabro filed a putative class action
complaint captioned Leonard Morales and Steven Calabro vs. 99
Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, against the Company in July 2010, claiming
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200) and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.), as
well as unjust enrichment, arising out of the Company's September
2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs seek restitution of
all amounts allegedly "wrongfully obtained" by the Company,
injunctive and declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and their attorney's fees and costs.  The Company filed
a demurrer to all of the causes of action in this complaint as
well as a motion to strike certain portions of it.  In response to
these motions, the plaintiffs requested that their case be
consolidated with the lawsuit filed by Phillip Kavis, et al.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company in July 2010, captioned Phillip Kavis, Debra Major,
Barbara Maines, and Susan Jonas v. 99 Cents Only Stores, David
Gold, Jeff Gold, Howard Gold, and Eric Schiffer, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  The complaint
claims violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
(California Business & Professions Code Section 17200), False
Advertising Law (California Business & Professions Code Section
17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code
Section 1770), as well as intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
Company's September 2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the Company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.  The Company filed a demurrer
to all of the causes of action in this complaint as well as a
motion to strike certain portions of it.  In response to these
motions, the plaintiffs requested that their case be consolidated
with the Morales lawsuit and filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The two sets of plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The Company has filed a demurrer and motion to strike directed
towards portions of the amended complaint, and these motions were
heard on April 27, 2011.  These motions have been fully briefed
and argued and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court.
Discovery has begun in this case and is ongoing.


99 CENTS: Faces "Niemiller" Suit in California for Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is defending itself against a lawsuit filed
by Linda Niemiller in Los Angeles, California, according to the
Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 2, 2011.

Linda Niemiller, a former assistant manager for the Company, filed
an action in March 2011 captioned Linda Niemiller v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.  She asserts claims on behalf of herself, and all others
allegedly similarly situated, under the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act and the California Business and Professions Code
based on allegations that the Company has a pattern or practice of
denying and/or failing to promote women to the position of Store
Manager and to provide them with compensation equal to that of men
doing equal work.  She also asserts an individual claim for
retaliation based on the allegation that the Company failed to
promote her in retaliation for her having opposed and objected to
discrimination based on gender.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of all allegedly similarly situated current, past and future
women as to whom the Company has denied hiring and promotion to
the position of Store Manager and equal compensation in the State
of California on the basis of gender.  She seeks to recover back
pay, front pay, general and special damages, punitive damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, an order assigning herself and
members of the putative class to those jobs they purportedly would
have held but for the Company's allegedly discriminatory
practices, an adjustment of the wage rates, benefits, and
seniority rights for herself and members of the putative class to
that level which they purportedly would be enjoying but for the
Company's alleged discriminatory practices, pre-judgment interest
and attorney's fees and costs.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


ADVOCAT INC: Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint brought against Advocat Inc. in
Arkansas is still pending, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
residents of the Facility over the past five years.  The lawsuit
remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the
court as a class action.  The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


AGL RESOURCES: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle two remaining shareholder actions that challenged its
merger with Nicor Inc., according to the Company's May 26, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As described in greater detail in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus of AGL Resources Inc. and Nicor Inc. filed
with the SEC on May 2, 2011, Nicor, Nicor's board of directors,
AGL Resources, one or both of AGL Resources' acquisition
subsidiaries and, in one instance, Nicor's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in
six putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Nicor
shareholders -- five in Illinois state court and one in the United
States Federal District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois -- challenging Nicor's proposed merger with AGL Resources
(as set forth in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
December 6, 2010, among AGL Resources, Apollo Acquisition Corp.,
Ottawa Acquisition LLC and Nicor).  Two of the state court
actions, including the lawsuit that named Nicor's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, were
subsequently voluntarily dismissed and the remaining state court
cases were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, leaving pending
only the consolidated class action and the Federal Action.

On May 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the defendants in the
Shareholder Actions, including AGL Resources and Nicor, entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs memorializing
the parties' agreement in principle to settle the Shareholder
Actions pending, among other things, execution of a stipulation of
settlement and court approval.

Under the terms of the MOU, the defendants have agreed to make
available certain additional information pertaining to the merger
beyond the disclosures in the Proxy Statement.  The plaintiffs
have agreed to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, each and every
claim asserted in the Shareholder Actions and to withdraw any and
all motions filed in connection with such lawsuits.  In connection
with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek, and
defendants have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses of $675,000, subject to court approval.  This payment
will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in
the merger.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it is anticipated that it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  The
details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to be
distributed to Nicor's shareholders prior to a hearing before the
court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee
application.

The settlement will not affect (a) the merger consideration to be
paid to shareholders of Nicor in connection with the proposed
merger between AGL Resources and Nicor or the timing of the
special meeting of shareholders of Nicor scheduled for June 14,
2011, in Chicago, Illinois to vote upon a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement or (b) the timing of the special meeting of
shareholders of AGL Resources scheduled for June 14, 2011, in
Atlanta, Georgia to vote upon a proposal to approve an issuance of
shares of AGL Resources common stock as contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and a proposal to approve an amendment to AGL Resources'
amended and restated articles of incorporation to increase the
number of directors that may serve on the board of directors of
AGL Resources from 15 to 16 directors.  The defendants have
denied, and continue to deny, all of the allegations in the
Shareholder Actions and believe the disclosures contained in the
Proxy Statement are appropriate and sufficient under the law.
Nevertheless, the defendants have agreed to settle the Shareholder
Actions in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of
any delay to the closing of the merger.


AIRGAS INC: Court Dismisses Claims Over Air Products Tender Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed with prejudice all claims
asserted against Airgas, Inc., and its directors in the lawsuits
commenced in connection with the tender offer of Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc.'s outstanding shares of common stock, according to
the Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 11, 2010, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., initiated
an unsolicited tender offer for all of Airgas, Inc.'s outstanding
shares of common stock.  In connection with this tender offer, Air
Products filed an action against the Company and members of its
Board in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  In the suit, Air
Products sought, among other things, an order declaring that
members of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties by
refusing to negotiate with Air Products.  Additionally, a number
of purported stockholder class action lawsuits were commenced
against the Company and/or the members of the Airgas Board in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  These suits, which were later
consolidated, alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Airgas Board breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to
negotiate with Air Products, failing to seek more valuable
alternatives and failing to redeem the Company's shareholder
rights plan.

On February 15, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied in
their entirety all requests for relief by Air Products and by the
plaintiffs in the stockholder class action lawsuits, and dismissed
with prejudice all claims asserted against the Company and its
directors.  Air Products promptly terminated its unsolicited
tender offer and no appeal of the Court's decision was filed by
Air Products or the stockholder plaintiffs.


AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group Inc. continues to
defend itself from a class action lawsuit filed by a former
employee in Ohio, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 31, 2008, a former ABX Air, Inc., employee filed a
complaint against ABX, a total of four current and former
executives and managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and
three former executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The case was
filed as a putative class action against the defendants, and
asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO).  The complaint, which was later amended to
include a second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid
to hourly wage employees during the period from December 1999 to
January 2005.  On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in
response to a motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants,
dismissing three of the five claims constituting the basis of
Plaintiffs' complaint.  Most recently, the Court issued a decision
on October 7, 2010, permitting the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint for the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed
claims.  On October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants
filed an answer denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs'
second amended complaint.

The complaint is similar to a prior complaint filed by another
former employee in April 2007.  The prior complaint was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's
request on November 3, 2008.


AMB PROPERTY: Enters Deals to Resolve Two Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMB Property Corporation has reached separate agreements with the
parties in two consolidated lawsuits filed against it in
connection with its merger with ProLogis, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

AMB Property Corporation, the parent company, and AMB Property,
L.P., the operating partnership, have been named as defendants in
several pending putative shareholder class actions filed in
connection with the combination of the parent company and
ProLogis.

Three of the actions were filed in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver, Colorado.  These cases have been
consolidated, and on April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint against ProLogis, the members
of the ProLogis board of trustees, the parent company, New Pumpkin
Inc., Upper Pumpkin LLC, Pumpkin LLC and the operating
partnership.  The complaint alleges that ProLogis' trustees
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into
the merger agreement and that ProLogis, the parent company, New
Pumpkin Inc., Upper Pumpkin LLC, Pumpkin LLC and the operating
partnership aided and abetted the breaches of those fiduciary
duties.  The complaint further alleges that the registration
statement filed on Form S-4 in connection with the special
meetings of the shareholders of each of the parent company and
ProLogis to vote on the transaction contains material omissions
and misstatements.  The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an
order to (i) enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger
unless and until ProLogis adopts and implements a procedure or
process reasonably designed to enter into a merger agreement
providing the best possible value for ProLogis' shareholders, (ii)
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction that is in the best interests of ProLogis'
shareholders and to refrain from entering into any transaction
until the process for the sale or merger of ProLogis is completed
and the highest possible value obtained, (iii) rescind the merger
agreement, to the extent already implemented, and (iv) award
plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of the action.  Defendants
have moved to stay the Colorado action in favor of the Maryland
action.  Plaintiffs have moved for expedited discovery, and the
defendants have opposed that motion.

Two of the actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland for
Baltimore City.  The actions have been consolidated, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action and derivative
complaint on or about March 28, 2011.  The Maryland consolidated
complaint names the same defendants as the Colorado consolidated
complaint.  The complaint alleges that the members of the ProLogis
board of trustees breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger and that the parent company and the operating
partnership aided and abetted the breaches of those fiduciary
duties.  The complaint further alleges that the Registration
Statement is misleading and incomplete.  The plaintiffs in this
action seek, among other relief, an order to (i) enjoin,
preliminarily and permanently, the Merger, (ii) rescind the Merger
in the event it is consummated or award rescissory damages, (iii)
direct the defendants to account to plaintiffs and all other
members of the class for all damages, profits and any special
benefits defendants obtained as a result of their breaches of
fiduciary duties, and (iv) award plaintiffs the costs of the
action.  Defendants moved to dismiss the Maryland action for
failure to state a claim and to stay all discovery pending a
ruling on their motion to dismiss; the plaintiffs moved for
expedited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction
hearing.

On April 15, 2011, the parties to the Maryland action executed a
memorandum of understanding that embodies their agreement in
principle on the structure of a proposed settlement.  The proposed
settlement, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval following notice to the class of all ProLogis
shareholders during the period from January 30, 2011 through the
date of the consummation of the proposed merger, would dismiss all
causes of action asserted in the Maryland consolidated complaint
and release all claims that members of the Class may have arising
out of or relating in any manner to the proposed merger, including
all claims being asserted in the Colorado action.  Pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders in the
Registration Statement.  The parties reported to the Maryland
court on April 18, 2011 that they had reached agreement on a
proposed settlement and executed a memorandum of understanding.

On April 27, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action in
Colorado reached an agreement in principle on the structure of a
proposed settlement.  Under the proposed settlement, which is
subject to confirmatory discovery and approval of the Maryland
court following notice to the Class, defendants agreed to make
additional disclosures in the Registration Statement.

AMB Property believes that the claims asserted against it in these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against the claims.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Enters Stipulation of Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., has entered into a stipulation to
settle the securities class actions filed against it and certain
of its officers, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., and certain of its present or former
officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege
violations of the federal securities laws and/or state law.
Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws have been filed against the Company and
certain of its present or former directors and officers. These
suits include four class actions filed in January and February of
2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 08 CV 411. On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting
Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance
Corporation, et al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United
States District for the Southern District of New York. On or about
August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action. The consolidated amended complaint includes
the allegations presented by the original four class actions, the
allegations presented by the Painting Industry action, and
additional allegations. The consolidated amended complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common
stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of
purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on
behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's
March 2008 offerings. The suit names as defendants the Company,
the underwriters for the three offerings, the Company's
independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and
former directors and officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and
financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and
that the Registration Statements pursuant to which the three
offerings were made contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of the securities laws. On August 27, 2009, the
Company and the individual defendants named in the consolidated
securities action moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims
arising out of the March 2008 equity units and common stock
offering (resulting in the dismissal of the Company's independent
Certified Public Accountants from the action), and otherwise
denied the motions to dismiss. On April 15, 2010, the Court
ordered a Discovery Plan and Proposed Pretrial Schedule, pursuant
to which discovery was scheduled to commence on May 10, 2010, with
dispositive motions due by December 2, 2010. On December 9, 2010,
Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are
defendants in these actions entered into a memorandum of
understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement. On
May 6, 2011, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors
who are defendants in these actions entered in a stipulation of
settlement to settle the claims asserted in these actions.

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241. An amended
complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009. This action
is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged
Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates,
Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Securities 2007-1 ("STRATS") from June 29, 2007 through April 22,
2008. The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly
issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in
violation of the securities laws. On April 15, 2009, the Company
and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. On December 23, 2009, the Court initially
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that
decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case
before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss. The
additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010. On
December 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer and director and
the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into
a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to
settlement. On May 6, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and
director and the former officer who are defendants in this action
entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims
asserted in this action.

Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and
against Ambac as a nominal defendant. These suits, which are
brought purportedly on behalf of the Company, are in many ways
similar and allege violations of law for conduct occurring between
October 2005 and the dates of suit regarding, among other things,
Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, Ambac's public
disclosures regarding such guarantees and Ambac's financial
condition, and certain defendants' alleged insider trading on non-
public information. The suits include (i) three actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV
854; on June 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that asserts violations of state and federal law,
including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets,
unjust enrichment and violations of the federal securities laws;
on August 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants named
in the consolidated Southern District of New York derivative
action moved to dismiss that action for want of demand and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; on December 11,
2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 17, 2008; on June 2, 2009 defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint; on November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the
consolidated derivative action without prejudice to its renewal
when and if the automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code is
lifted (ii) two actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; on May 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including
breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, reckless and gross
mismanagement, and unjust enrichment; on December 30, 2008, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to stay the
Delaware shareholder derivative action in favor of the Southern
District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; plaintiffs in
the Delaware action subsequently moved to intervene in the
Southern District of New York derivative action and on May 12,
2009, the motion to intervene was denied; and (iii) two actions
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E; on September 22, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts
claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste; on January 5, 2010,
the New York Supreme Court granted defendants motion to stay the
New York Supreme Court action in favor of the Southern District of
New York Consolidated Derivative Action; one of the actions
consolidated in the New York Supreme Court actions is currently
listed on the Court's docket as dismissed, the other action
remains listed as stayed.

Pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered
into on December 9, 2010, on May 6, 2011, Ambac and all of its
present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the
Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs in In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation and the named
plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for settlement
of both of the Securities Class Actions. The Stipulation provides
that the claims of the putative plaintiff classes, among other
claims, will be settled for a cash payment of $27,100,000. Certain
of the insurance carriers who provided directors' and officers'
liability coverage to Ambac's present and former officers and
directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay
$24,600,000 of the settlement, pursuant to a separate agreement
entered into between Ambac, the present or former officers or
directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or
the Derivative Actions, and those insurance carriers. Ambac has
agreed to pay $2,500,000 of the settlement and previously
deposited that amount into an escrow account (classified as
Restricted Cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheet since these
amounts are held in escrow). Lead and named plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other
members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims
against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or
directors who are parties to the Stipulation. The settlement
provided for in the Stipulation is subject to various conditions,
including, among others, approval by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and approval by the
bankruptcy court of Ambac's entry into the settlement and of
certain releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims
(among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any
shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively
on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or
directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or
might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions
or any of the Derivative Actions. The Stipulation further provides
that nothing in the Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by
any defendant of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing.


AMERICA SERVICE: Tenn. Court Dismisses Valitas Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of America
Service Group Inc.'s stockholders in the Chancery Court for
Davidson County, Tennessee, styled Colleen Witmer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. America Service
Group Inc., Valitas Health Services, Inc., Whiskey Acquisition
Corp., Burton C. Einspruch, William M. Fenimore, Jr., John W.
Gildea, Richard Hallworth, John C. McCauley, Michael W. Taylor and
Richard D. Wright, has been dismissed, according to the Company's
May 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The complaint sought an order enjoining or rescinding the
previously announced merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated March 2, 2011, under which Valitas Health Services,
Inc., the parent company of Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
would acquire the Company, together with other relief.

The Company noted that no consideration was paid or promised to
the plaintiffs in exchange for the dismissal.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the closing of the
Merger remains subject to satisfaction or waiver of certain other
conditions, including the adoption of the Merger Agreement by the
stockholders of the Company.  A special stockholders' meeting to
vote upon the adoption of the Merger Agreement is scheduled for
June 1, 2011.

America Service Group Inc., based in Brentwood, Tenn., is a
nationwide provider of correctional healthcare services in the
United States.  The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a
wide range of healthcare programs to government agencies for the
medical care of inmates.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Court Stays Discovery in Calif. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated class action filed in California
against American Apparel Inc. is stayed pending resolution of any
motions to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 25, 2010,
August 31, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010,
respectively, against the Company and certain of its officers
and executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased its common stock between December 19, 2006 and
August 17, 2010.  On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were
consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In re American
Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352.  On
March 14, 2011, the United States District Court appointed the
firm of Barroway Topaz, LLP to serve as lead counsel and Mr.
Charles Rendelman to serve as lead plaintiff.

On April 29, 2011, Mr. Rendelman filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint against American Apparel, certain of its officers, and
Lion, alleging two causes of action for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rules 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b), arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained
in the Company's press releases, public filings with the SEC, and
other public statements relating to (i) the adequacy of its
internal and financial control policies and procedures; (ii) its
employment practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of
over 1,500 employees following an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement inspection had on American Apparel.  Discovery is
stayed in the Federal Securities Action pending resolution of any
forthcoming motions to dismiss the Federal Securities Action.

Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may
deem proper.  The Company is unable to predict the financial
outcome of these matters at this time, and any views formed as to
the viability of these claims or the financial exposure which
could result may change from time to time as the matters proceed
through their course.  However, no assurance can be made that
these matters, either individually or together with the potential
for similar suits and reputational harm, will not result in a
material financial exposure, which could have a material adverse
effect upon the Company's financial condition and results of
operations.


AMERICAN LASER: Faces Class Action Over Unlicensed Estheticians
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a consumer class action
claims American Laser Centers and American Laser Skincare delegate
medical procedures to "estheticians" who practice medicine without
a license.

A copy of the Complaint in Jones v. ALC of Washington, LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-2-18774-8 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/31/Medical.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sitcov, Esq.
          STEVE SITCOV, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 292-0494
          E-mail: steve@sitcov.com


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Amended Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc., continues to defend itself
against an amended securities suit filed in West Virginia,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey
and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division), encaptioned
Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
3:10 CV-81. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a
class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock
between February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The plaintiff
alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
has not, at this time, specified the amount of damages being
sought in this action.  In an order dated November 10, 2010,
Douglas Gaer and the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust were appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel was approved.  On January 25, 2011,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting the same statutory
claims against the Company, Boston and Wilkins.  On or about
March 10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.  On or about April 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss.   Defendants' reply
memorandum was due on or about May 16, 2011.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend itself against a class
action pending in Jefferson County, Alabama, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and other bond
insurers, were named as defendants in a civil action brought in
the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama relating to the
County's problems meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion
sewer debt: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-
2008-901907.00, a putative class action. The action was brought on
behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt. The complaint in this
lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On January, 13, 2011,
the circuit court issued an order denying a motion by the bond
insurers and other defendants to dismiss the action. Defendants,
including the bond insurers, have petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court vacating such
order and directing the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
this lawsuit.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Joyce Gannon, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
class action lawsuit alleging that Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals discriminated against women employees has been
expanded to include female pharmaceutical sales representatives
and all women in Bayer HealthCare's Consumer Care unit -- groups
who weren't originally included in a gender bias complaint filed
earlier this year against the drug giant.

In an amended complaint filed on May 26 in federal court in
New Jersey, lawyers for the women said the sales representatives
were paid less and not promoted as often as male peers while the
women in the consumer care division were sexually harassed by
Bayer executives and the company ignored their requests for help.

The original complaint, filed in March in the U.S. District Court
in Newark, N.J., by six current and former female Bayer HealthCare
employees on behalf of other women at the company, seeks $100
million in lost salary and benefits.  It alleges Bayer executives
were openly hostile to women -- especially pregnant women, working
mothers and women who took maternity leaves.

Bayer HealthCare, based in New Jersey, is a division of Bayer
Corp., a German company with its U.S. headquarters in Robinson.

In a statement, Bayer denied the allegations, pledged to defend
itself and said it is "committed strongly to a policy of
nondiscrimination and equal treatment for all employees."

In the amended complaint, Natalie Celske, a senior sales
consultant, said that in 2009, she was replaced in a district
trainer position based in Boise, Idaho, by a male colleague who
had lower sales results and lower overall performance.  When she
asked a manager why, he replied that the male candidate was "more
into [the man's] career path, not yours."

Since then, the male supervisor has declined to consider her for
any promotions and exhibits hostile behavior to her compared with
how he treats male employees, the complaint said.

In a portion of the complaint that broadens the gender bias
allegations to the consumer care division, Vera Santangelo, a
financial specialist in that unit, said that despite several
exceptional performance awards, she received less pay than male
colleagues and was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation
for reporting the harassment.

Ms. Santangelo alleged a senior attorney for Bayer HealthCare
repeatedly made comments about her body and her attire and once
made an inappropriate comment to her during an elevator ride.

She sought help from an on-site counselor and reported the
incident to a company hotline, Bayer's corporate ombudsman and an
official in human resources, the complaint said.

When the harassment did not stop, according to the complaint, she
confided in her manager who "dismissed or diminished her concerns
and . . . made it seem like the sexual harassment she was
experiencing was her fault or her problem."

In a subsequent performance review, the complaint said, her
manager said she was "too emotional" and threatened to lower her
rating, which could prevent her from receiving a pay raise and
make her ineligible for future promotions.  She is currently on a
short-term medical leave related to stress caused by the
harassment, the complaint said.


BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of an
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in North Carolina, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation.  The Complaint
alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 by (1)
improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and
settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program,
and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.  The purported class consists
of all residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from
Beazer, using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer
that included seller-funded down payment assistance, between
January 1, 2000 and October 11, 2007.  The parties have reached an
agreement to settle the lawsuit, which will be partially funded by
insurance proceeds.  The settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the court but remains subject to final court approval.
Under the terms of the settlement, the action will be dismissed
with prejudice, and the Company and all other defendants will not
admit any liability.


BEAZER HOMES: Still Faces Florida Homeowners' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action complaint filed by Florida homeowners,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

On June 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed by
the owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was filed in
the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes in
Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with
defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict
litigation.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by its home warranty or are without merit.  Accordingly,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.
Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes
affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to a repair
protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation
court, including those homes involved in litigation.  To date, the
vast majority of affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the
Company's offer to repair.  The Company also continues to pursue
recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and
drywall manufacturers for its repair costs.


BELL SPORTS: Recalls 33,600 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Bell Sports, of Scotts Valley, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 31,100 full-face bicycle
helmets in the United States of America, and about 2,500 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic buckle that connects the chin straps can fail, causing
the helmet to come off the wearer's head.  This poses a head
injury hazard to riders in the event of a fall.

The firm has received one report of a buckle failing during an
accident, resulting in an injury that required stitches below the
wearer's eye.

This recall involves Bell Exodus full-face helmets with a plastic
buckle on the chinstrap and model and part numbers listed below.
The helmets have an angled visor and were sold in youth size.  The
model and part number can be found on a removable sticker located
on the side of the helmet.

   Color                           Part/Model Number
   -----                           -----------------
   Orange/Grey/Black            1003825/035011898025
   Blue/Grey/Gold/White/Black   1006714/035011917719

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11235.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Walmart stores nationwide and Amazon.com between August 2009 and
March 2011 for between $50 and $60.

Consumers should stop using the helmets immediately and contact
Bell Sports for a replacement or refund.  For additional
information call Bell Sports toll-free at (866) 892-6059 between
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, via e-
mail at answer_desk@bellsports.com, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.bellsports.com/


CALAMOS ASSET: Brown's Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Christopher Brown from the dismissal of his class
action complaint against Calamos Asset Management Inc. is still
pending, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, an indirect subsidiary, were
named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on July 15,
2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No.
10-CV-04422 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the
Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).  This
action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District
Court and re-filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
on September 13, 2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., Civil Action No. 10CH39590).  Other defendants include
CHI, current and former trustees of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr.,
Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B.
Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer, and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against the Company and Calamos Advisors serving as advisor or
otherwise earning fees for services to CHI; (iii) an unspecified
amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award of
attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.  On
October 13, 2010, the defendants removed this action from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Christopher Brown et al. v
John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-06558 (N.D. Ill.)) and also
moved to dismiss the complaint.

On November 5, 2010, plaintiff moved to remand the case to the
Circuit Court of Cook County.  On March 14, 2011, the district
court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and dismissed the case.
Plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the case is now pending.


CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Ruling on Proposed Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed against the
Company by Russell Bourrienne, according to its May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed on September 14, 2010 (Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-5833
(N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the Calamos
Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).  This action was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District Court and
re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on October 18,
2010 (Russell Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No.
10CH45119 ).  Other defendants include current and former trustees
of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr., Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal,
William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F.
Hanauer and unspecified defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against serving as advisor or otherwise earning fees for services
to CHI; (iii) an unspecified amount of monetary relief plus
interest; (iv) an award of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v)
such other and further relief, including punitive damages, as may
be available to the plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks
to represent.

On November 12, 2010, the defendants removed this action from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Russell Bourrienne et al. v
John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-07295 (N.D. Ill.)).
Defendants have also moved to dismiss the complaint. The case is
currently awaiting decision of that motion.


CALAMOS ASSET: "Rutgers" Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action complaint brought by Rutgers Casualty Insurance
Company, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed on August 13, 2010 (Rutgers Casualty
Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-
5106 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the Calamos
Convertible and High Income Fund (CHY).  This action was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District Court and
re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on December 22,
2010 (Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., No. 10CH53998).  Other defendants include CHY, current
and former trustees of CHY, John P. Calamos, Sr., Nick P. Calamos,
Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B.
Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHY.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against serving as advisor or otherwise earning fees for services
to CHY; (iii) an unspecified amount of monetary relief plus
interest; (iv) an award of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v)
such other and further relief, including punitive damages, as may
be available to the plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks
to represent.  On January 21, 2011, the defendants removed this
action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Rutgers
Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.,
No. 11-CV-00462 (N.D. Ill.)).  Defendants have also moved to
dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff has moved to remand the case
to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
these allegations.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders in a class
action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court assert that directors
of California Pizza Kitchen are selling the company too cheaply
through a self-dealing, unfair process, to Golden Gate Opportunity
Fund, for $18.50 a share, or $470 million.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Still Pending in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in connection with its 2008 common
stock offering, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11,
2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on
September 2, 2010.  A derivative action was also filed in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on March 10, 2009
against the company's directors and certain of its officers
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to the disclosure
matters alleged in the securities case.  The derivative action is
stayed pursuant to stipulation.  The Company is currently unable
to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential
loss associated with the securities class action case, which is at
an early stage.


CHINA GREEN: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has
appointed a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against China
Green Agriculture, Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 12,
2009 and September 1, 2010.  The complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in the
Company's financial statements and related disclosure during the
class period. The plaintiffs claim that such allegedly misleading
financial statements inflated the price of the Company's common
stock and seek monetary damages in an amount to be determined at
trial. On April 27, 2011, the court appointed the lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel.


COWEN GROUP: Enters MOU to Settle Suits Over LaBranche Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its
acquisition of LaBranche & Co Inc., according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

During February 2011, the Company and LaBranche & Co Inc.
announced a definitive merger agreement under which the Company
has agreed to acquire LaBranche, a market-maker in options,
exchange traded funds and futures on various exchanges
domestically and internationally.

On February 22, 2011, a putative class action by a purported
holder of LaBranche & Co. stock, captioned Moskal v. LaBranche &
Co., et. al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, naming as defendants the Company,
LaBranche, members of the board of directors of LaBranche, and
Louisiana Merger Sub, Inc.  On February 24, 2011, a separate
lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York against the same parties.  The two lawsuits,
which were consolidated on April 19, 2011, challenge LaBranche's
decision to enter into the merger.  On April 15, 2011, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges that
members of the LaBranche board of directors breached the fiduciary
duties owed to the LaBranche stockholders by failing to maximize
the sale price for LaBranche, by agreeing to provisions in the
merger agreement that allegedly are intended to deter alternative
bids, and by failing to disclose material information to LaBranche
stockholders in connection with the merger.  The amended complaint
further alleges that two members of the LaBranche board of
directors were motivated to approve the Merger Agreement by the
prospect of positions with the Company following the closing of
the merger.  The amended complaint also alleges, among other
things, that LaBranche, the Company and Louisiana Merger Sub, Inc.
aided and abetted LaBranche's directors in breaching their
fiduciary duties to shareholders.  The amended complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief against consummation of the
merger, attorney's fees and damages in an unspecified amount.

On May 2, 2011, counsel for the parties to the consolidated
lawsuit reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated lawsuit reflected in a memorandum of understanding.
In connection with the settlement, LaBranche and Cowen agreed to
make certain additional disclosures in the Form S-4 filed in
connection with the LaBranche transaction.  The memorandum of
understanding also contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will
contain customary releases and will be subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the Court.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally
approved by the Court, will resolve all of the claims that were or
could have been brought in the actions being settled, including
all claims relating to the merger, the Merger Agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement and as provided in the memorandum
of understanding, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the
settlement.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

The Company adds that it cannot presently predict the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any.


COWEN GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Mallen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Cowen and Company, LLC, is
awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative class action
lawsuit currently pending in California, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 22, 2011, a putative class action, captioned Mallen v.
Alphatec Holdings, Inc., et. al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, naming as
defendants Alphatec Holdings, Inc., members of the Alphatec board
of directors, Healthpoint Capital Partners, LLP, Healthpoint
Capital Partners II, LLP, as well as Jefferies & Co., Inc.,
Canaccord Adams, Inc., Lazard Capital Markets, LLC, and Cowen and
Company, LLC.  The complaint brings claims against the Underwriter
Defendants under sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933
for alleged materially inaccurate and misleading statements and
omissions in the registration statement and prospectus for an
April 2010 offering of common stock of Alphatec regarding the
success of Alphatec's acquisition of a company named Scient'x.  On
April 18, 2011, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint as against the Underwriter Defendants.

The Company says it cannot presently predict the ultimate outcome
of the litigation or estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any.


CVB FINANCIAL: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit against CVB
Financial Corp. remains pending in California, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.  On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx).  That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and
approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class.  The Company's initial response to the complaint was due on
May 13, 2011.

Because the actions are still in the early stages, the Company
says it cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is
probable related to the actions.


DANVERS BANCORP: Massachusetts Court Stays "Swift" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court granted Danvers Bancorp, Inc.'s
motion to stay the class action captioned Swift v. Bottomley et
al. pending final resolution of the consolidated shareholders
litigation pending in Delaware, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Michael Rubin, Steven M. Knudsen, and Ralph E. Swift, each alleged
Danvers stockholders, filed putative class actions on February 1,
2, and 14, 2011, respectively, allegedly on behalf of all Danvers
stockholders against Danvers, the Danvers board of directors, and
People's United Financial Inc.  The Rubin and Knudsen actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and were consolidated into
one action on February 18, 2011, under the caption In re Danvers
Bancorp Inc. Shareholders Litigation.  The Swift action was filed
in Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, and was
transferred to the Business Litigation Session on February 17,
2011, under the caption Swift v. Bottomley et al.  The Delaware
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 10,
2011, and the Massachusetts plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on March 9, 2011.

The amended complaints generally allege, among other things, that
(i) the Danvers directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger, (ii) People's United and Danvers aided and
abetted such breaches and (iii) the proxy statement was deficient
in that it failed to disclose certain information.  The amended
complaints seek, among other relief, injunctive relief, damages
and attorneys' fees.  Danvers, the Danvers board of directors and
People's United deny any wrongdoing in connection with the
proposed merger and maintain that they diligently and scrupulously
complied with any and all fiduciary and other legal duties.

On April 22, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the In re Danvers Bancorp Inc. Shareholders
Litigation plaintiffs regarding the settlement of that action.  In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Danvers has agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in
the Company's Form 8-K filed on April 22, 2011.  The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will seek to enter
into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to Danvers'
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may not be consummated.

On May 2, 2011, the Massachusetts Superior Court, Business
Litigation Session, granted the defendants' motion to stay the
Swift v. Bottomley et al. action pending final resolution of the
Delaware litigation.


DARIUS TSATSI: Among Defendants in Class Action Over Diagnosis
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports that Yorkton radiologist
Dr. L. Darius Tsatsi continues to be named in a second proposed
class-action lawsuit, the first having been discontinued in the
fall.

The first proposed class action was launched in June 2009 by Tony
Merchant's firm on behalf of Sharon Fabrick of Yorkton and other
patients whose test results and subsequent diagnoses had, at that
time, been brought into question.  Named as defendants were
Dr. Tsatsi, the provincial government, and three regional health
authorities -- Sunrise, Cypress and Prince Albert Parkland.

In October 2010, Mr. Merchant's firm filed a notice of
discontinuance with Regina Court of Queen's Bench, effectively
ending that particular action.  No reasons for the discontinuance
were stated in the court file.

But a second proposed class action has been filed by the Merchant
firm in Saskatoon in April 2010, this one on behalf of Ebenezer
resident Jason Dreger and other patients.  The same parties were
named as defendants, except for the provincial government.

The claim -- which contains statements that haven't been proven in
court -- alleges "breaches, acts, omissions and wrongdoing
committed by Dr. Tsatsi and the Regional Health Authorities."  The
claim further alleges the health authorities "permitted inferior
quality health care outside of Saskatchewan's major urban centers"
and questions Dr. Tsatsi's qualifications and skills as a
radiologist.

Mr. Dreger and other unnamed plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount in damages.

The claims were launched following events that began with a random
audit of Dr. Tsatsi's work by the Saskatchewan College of
Physicians and Surgeons.  The audit led to a provincial review of
more than 68,000 diagnostic images examined by Dr. Tsatsi during
his years in Yorkton.  The review later determined that just under
three per cent of the images were considered to have had the
potential to affect patient care.

Dr. Tsatsi previously launched a lawsuit against the province, the
Sunrise Health Region and the college, accusing them of defaming
him and asking for a public apology and reinstatement or an
equivalent position.  Dr. Tsatsi also previously launched a
defamation suit against Merchant.


DELL INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement agreement in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Dell Inc.
remain pending, according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 29, 2011.

Four putative securities class actions filed between September 13,
2006, and January 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against Dell and
certain of its current and former directors and officers were
consolidated as In re Dell Securities Litigation, and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the court.  The lead plaintiff asserted
claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act
based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding Dell's financial statements, governmental
investigations, internal controls, known battery problems and
business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell securities.
This action also included Dell's independent registered public
accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant.  On
October 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend.  On November 3, 2008,
the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and the officer
defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal was
fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2009.

On November 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a
written settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to
the proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
District Court on December 21, 2009.  The settlement was subject
to certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class
not exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the
District Court.

During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the original opt-out
period in the notice approved by the District Court expired
without the specified percentage being exceeded.  The District
Court subsequently granted final approval for the settlement and
entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010.  Dell paid $40 million
into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement and discharged
the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal 2011.  Certain
objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to approval of the
settlement.  While there can be no assurances with respect to
litigation, Dell believes it is unlikely that the settlement will
be overturned on appeal.


DELL INC: Settles with Plaintiffs in "Brazil" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. has entered into a class-wide settlement to resolve a
class action lawsuit filed by Chad Brazil and Steven Seick,
according to its May 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29,
2011.

Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action suit against
Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that Dell
advertised discounts on its products from false "regular" prices,
in violation of California law.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits from the alleged false
advertising, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.  In December 2010, the District Court certified a class
consisting of all California residents who had purchased certain
products advertised with a former sales price on the consumer
segment of Dell's Web site during an approximately four year
period between March 2003 and June 2007.

During the first quarter of Fiscal 2012, the plaintiffs and Dell
reached a class-wide settlement in principle regarding the dispute
on terms that are not material to the Company, however, the
settlement is still subject to submission and approval by the
District Court.


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance Standard Life Insurance, a subsidiary of Delphi Financial
Group, Inc., is still awaiting a court's decision on a negotiated
settlement of a Mississippi class action complaint related to
insurance policy payments, according to Delphi's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the
Company's subsidiary, RSLIC.  The action challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The parties have entered
into an agreement to settle this litigation, which is subject to
the approval of the court, and have filed a motion with the court
seeking such approval.  It is not anticipated that this
settlement, if approved and effectuated, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Manitoba Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. operates a store network through Dollar
Financial Group, Inc.  The Company, through its subsidiaries,
provides retail financial services to the general public through a
network of 1,193 locations operating principally as Money Mart(R),
The Money Shop, Loan Mart(R), Insta-Cheques(R) and The Check
Cashing Store in 17 states, Canada, the United Kingdom and the
Republic of Ireland.

In 2004, an action was filed against Money Mart in Manitoba on
behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from Money Mart.  The action has not been certified to date
as a class action.  If the action proceeds, Money Mart intends to
seek a stay of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff
entered into an arbitration and mediation agreement with Money
Mart with respect to the matters which are the subject of the
action.  The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.

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


FIRST NIAGARA: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. NewAlliance Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which provides that the parties to the class action
lawsuits filed in connection with the Company's merger with
NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., will enter into settlement
agreements, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In late August and September 2010, following the announcement of
the Company's merger with NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., ten
purported class actions were filed in Connecticut Superior Court
and in the Delaware Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
naming NewAlliance, the Company, and NewAlliance's directors as
defendants.  Certain of these actions also name FNFG Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and certain
NewAlliance officers as defendants.  These actions alleged, among
other things, that NewAlliance's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to NewAlliance stockholders by failing to
maximize stockholder value in approving the merger agreement with
the Company and by providing incomplete disclosures to
stockholders in advance of their upcoming vote whether to approve
the merger.  The actions further alleged that NewAlliance and the
Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  These actions sought to enjoin the merger on the agreed
upon terms and also sought attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions advised
NewAlliance that they had agreed to stay the Delaware actions and
proceed in the Connecticut actions alone.  After expedited
discovery was conducted, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which the Company and NewAlliance denied that
they committed any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints,
but agreed to amend the disclosures to stockholders in advance of
the vote whether to approve the merger.  The memorandum of
understanding provides that the parties will enter into settlement
agreements in both the Connecticut and Delaware actions, and
provides for attorneys' fees.  The final settlement agreements
will be subject to court approval.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on its
motion to dismiss a second amended complaint filed in connection
with the restatement of certain of the Company's financial
statements, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its officers. Curry v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094. The complaint asserts
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008 and October 18, 2009,
inclusive, and alleges, among other things, that defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to make
disclosures regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of Company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the Company's stock price; and that
following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement, the price
of the Company's stock declined. On November 4, 2009 and
November 13, 2009, substantively identical complaints were filed
in the Northern District of California by other purported Hansen
stockholders asserting the same claims on behalf of the same
putative class of Hansen stockholders. Livingstone v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367. All three complaints
seek certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys fees. On December 22, 2009,
two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and Nader Farr, filed a
joint application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for
consolidation of the three actions. On February 25, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting Mina and Nader Farr's application
for appointment as lead plaintiffs and consolidating the three
securities class actions. On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an
order granting lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in
addition to alleging that shareholders suffered damages as a
result of the decline in the Company's stock price following the
October 19, 2009 announcement, also alleges that shareholders
suffered additional damages as the result of share price declines
on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009, January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009,
and August 4, 2009, all of which lead plaintiffs allege were
caused by the disclosure of what they claim was previously
misrepresented information. The hearing on defendants' motion to
dismiss was held on March 4, 2011. The Court took the matter under
submission. The Company and the named officers intend to defend
themselves vigorously against these actions.


HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Hansen Natural Corporation
and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The
plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class
in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of
C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.  The plaintiff's
certification motion materials have not yet been filed.  In
accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.

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


HANSEN NATURAL: New Judge Takes Pending Motions Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new judge assigned to the class action lawsuit filed by
Christopher Chavez against Hansen Natural Corporation has taken
pending motions under submission without oral argument, according
to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior Court
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act and
filed motions for dismissal or transfer.  On June 11, 2007, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's
complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion
reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion
for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification.  The hearing for all three motions
occurred on May 27, 2010.  On June 18, 2010, the District Court
entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was no
preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The class that the District Court certified initially
consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the
Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between
May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.  The Company subsequently filed a
petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to file an
appeal to reverse the decision to certify a class.  On August 27,
2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's petition. On
September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the
class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of
December 10, 2010, and a trial date for March, 2011.  On
September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for Leave to file
a motion for reconsideration of the order certifying the class
action.  On November 11, 2010, the Company filed two dispositive
motions: a motion to decertify the class and a motion for summary
judgment.  The plaintiff filed his motion for partial summary
judgment.  The District Court took all motions under submission
without oral argument. The District Court judge assigned to the
case, Judge Vaughn Walker, announced his retirement from the
bench, with such retirement effective February, 2011.  On
January 31, 2011, Judge Jeffrey S. White was assigned to the case
and subsequently vacated all pending hearing dates.  A case
management conference was held on March 18, 2011, and the District
Court has taken the pending motions under submission without oral
argument.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all
the allegations and plans a vigorous defense. The Company believes
that any possible litigation losses, if awarded, would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corporation continues to defend itself against an
amended consolidated securities class action complaint in
California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the
"Consolidated Class Action Complaint"). The Consolidated Class
Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9,
2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period").  It named as
defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and
Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its sales of "Allied" energy
drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the
basis of material non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged
that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of
2007 did not include certain promotional expenses.  The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  While
similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the
allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company
engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that
rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results
and certain other statements made by the defendants.  In addition,
it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended
Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.  Plaintiff's opposition to
defendants' motion was filed on January 14, 2011, and defendants'
reply brief was filed on February 11, 2011. A hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint
was scheduled for May 12, 2011.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated.


HARBIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Harbin Electric, Inc., is still defending itself against several
shareholder class actions filed in the states of Nevada and New
York over the proposed buyout of the Company by Tianfu Yang and
his affiliates, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Ten shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and/or certain officers and the members of its Board of
Directors, in connection with the October 10, 2010 non-binding
proposal made by the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Tianfu Yang, and Baring Private Equity Asia Group
Limited to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
Common Stock not currently owned by Mr. Yang and his affiliates
for $24.00 per share in cash, as further described in the Schedule
13D/A and Exhibits thereto filed on October 12, 2010. Five actions
were filed in Nevada state court (Carson City, Clark County, or
Washoe County); two actions were filed in Nevada federal district
court; and three actions were filed in New York state court. All
of the actions assert claims against the Company and/or members of
the Board for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Proposal.

On or about October 19, 2010, the Company became aware that the
first of the shareholder class actions had been filed against the
Company and its Board members in connection with the Proposal.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the proposed buyout
price and the process of evaluating the Proposal are unfair and
inadequate. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, to enjoin
defendants from consummating the Proposal and to direct defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the Company's shareholders.

The Company has moved, or will move, to dismiss, transfer, or stay
Plaintiffs' actions. The Company has reviewed the allegations
contained in the complaints and believes they are without merit.
The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


HECKMANN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heckmann Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss
an amended complaint in the class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in connection with the acquisition of China Water and
Drinks Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against the Company and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The Class Action alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the acquisition of China Water
and Drinks Inc.  The Company responded by filing a motion to
transfer the Class Action to California and a motion to dismiss
the case.  On October 6, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a
report and recommendation to the District Court Judge to deny the
motion to transfer.  On October 8, 2010, the court-appointed lead
plaintiff, Matthew Haberkorn, filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint that adds China Water as a defendant.  On October 25,
2010, the Company filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation on the motion to transfer.  The court
adopted the report and recommendation on the motion to transfer on
March 31, 2011.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint and a reply to lead plaintiff's opposition
to the motion to dismiss.  The court has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss.

On May 21, 2010, Westfield Retirement Board, also purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, filed a virtually identical class
action lawsuit in the United States District for the Central
District of California.  On July 26, 2010, Westfield filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss that case.  On July 27, 2010, the
case was dismissed.

The Company says that the outcome of the Class Action could have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.


HONDA CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewis, writing for The Star, reports that a day after the
Star reported an online breach of customer information at Honda
Canada Ltd., lawyers for affected Honda customers announced a
proposed class action lawsuit seeking C$200 million in damages.

The action, which Toronto-based law firm Flaherty Dow Elliott &
McCarthy says it filed on May 27 in Superior Court in Oshawa
against Honda Canada Inc. and its affiliates, claims the breach
exposed clients to "theft of their identity, theft from their bank
accounts and theft from their debit and credit cards."

Filed under representative plaintiff Brian Scholes of
Peterborough, the claim says Honda failed to adequately protect
clients' personal and confidential information and failed to
notify customers of the breach "in a reasonable amount of time."

In a letter dated May 13, Honda notified 283,000 customers that
their personal information could have been stolen after unknown
third parties gained illegal access to data stored on the myHonda
and myAcura e-commerce Web sites.

It said the compromised data included names and vehicle
identification numbers, but said financial records such as credit
card and debit account numbers were not taken.

Sean Brown, Esq., a partner at Flaherty, said Honda ought to have
known its data was vulnerable to hacking after customer
information was extracted from American Honda Motor Co.'s data
base in a similar attack last December.

Honda, which in a statement on May 27 said it was not aware of the
legal action, revealed in its letter to customers that it first
noticed unusual activity on the sites in March.

The company said it notified customers, police and provincial and
federal privacy commissioners, warning customers in the letter and
on its Web site to be on guard against "marketing campaigns from
third parties that reference ownership of a Honda or Acura
vehicle."


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 17,900 Remote Control Model Helicopters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Horizon Hobby, Inc., of Champaign, Illinois,
announced a voluntary recall of about 16,600 Blade mCP X Bind-N
Fly and Ready to Fly Remote Control Model Helicopters and
replacement Blade mCP X Main Blade Grips with Bearings in the
United States of America and 1,300 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The main blade grips and main rotor blades can release from the
main rotor head, posing an impact and laceration hazard.

Horizon Hobby has received 312 reports of the rotor blades
releasing from the rotor head, including 34 reports of a blade
striking a user, resulting in 12 laceration injuries.

Blade ultra-micro indoor/outdoor helicopters have red and blue
canopies with the name "Blade mCP X" printed on both sides.  The
model numbers are printed on the underside of the products' boxes
with the bar code.  The recalled products are:

   Product Name                        Size            Model No.
   ------------                        ----            ---------
   Bind-N-Fly Helicopter       Length 9.65 inches        BLH3580

   Ready to Fly Helicopter     Length 9.65 inches        BLH3500
   (transmitter included)

   Main Blade Grips with       Rotor Diameter .6 inches  BLH3514
   Bearings (replacement part)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11236.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
retailers nationwide during March 2011 for $180 to $220 for the
model helicopters and $10 for the replacement part.

Consumers should contact Horizon Hobby for free replacement of
main rotor grips and do-it-yourself instructions.  For additional
information, contact Horizon Hobby Support Team toll-free at (877)
504-0233 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time on
Saturdays, and between 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, or
visit the Web site at http://www.bladehelis.com/MCPX/


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Signs MOU to End Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware
Chancery Court executed a memorandum of understanding pursuant to
which they will enter into a definitive settlement agreement to
resolve the plaintiffs' claims in connection with Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s entry into a merger agreement with Merck &
Co., Inc., and Monarch Transaction Corp., according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On April 5, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Merck & Co., Inc., and Monarch Transaction Corp., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merck, through Monarch, has commenced a tender offer
for all outstanding common stock of Inspire at a price of $5.00
per share, payable net to the seller in cash without interest
thereon, less any applicable withholding taxes.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement with Merck and
Monarch, these putative class action lawsuits were filed: (i)
Anthony S. Luttenberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No.
6363, filed on April 11, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, which plaintiffs' subsequently moved to
voluntarily dismiss on April 14, 2011, or the Luttenberger
Dismissed Complaint; (ii) Norris Foster, Noah Alpern and Louis
Alpern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. George Abercrombie, et al., Case No. 5:11-CV-00180,
filed on April 14, 2011, as amended on April 19, 2011, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, or the Foster Complaint; (iii) Steve Dougherty,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 6378, filed on April 14,
2011, as amended on April 20, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, or the Dougherty Complaint; (iv) Maz Aiyub,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
George Abercrombie, et al., Case No. 6381, filed on April 15,
2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; (v)
Pradeep Bheda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. George Abercrombie, et al., Case No. 6382, filed on
April 15, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware;
and (vi) Raymond Chan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 6401, filed on April 21, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

All of the suits name the Company, the members of its Board of
Directors, Merck and Monarch as defendants.  All of the lawsuits
are brought by purported holders of the Company's common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's stockholders, alleging that the Company's Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Tender Offer and the Merger by purportedly failing to maximize
stockholder value, and that the Company, Merck, and Monarch aided
and abetted the alleged breaches.  All of the lawsuits seek
equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the Tender Offer and the Merger, rescission of the
Merger Agreement and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees. In addition, the Dougherty Complaint alleges the
Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duty to
disclose material information and the Foster Complaint alleges (i)
the Company, its Board of Directors and Merck disseminated false
and misleading statements relating to, among other things, the
sale process of the Company in violation of Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and (ii) certain control person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, the Board
of Directors and Merck.

On April 22, 2011, all defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss
the Foster Complaint.  The court has not ruled on this motion.  On
April 19, 2011, plaintiffs in the Foster Complaint filed an
emergency motion for expedited discovery and to set a briefing
schedule and hearing date for a preliminary injunction hearing and
all defendants, subsequently, filed an opposition to that motion.
On May 2, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited
discovery and granted their motion to set a briefing schedule and
hearing date on their motion for a preliminary injunction.  That
motion will be fully briefed by May 9, 2011 and the court will
hold a preliminary injunction hearing on May 10, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware signed an order consolidating
all of the Delaware actions (with the exception of the
Luttenberger Dismissed Complaint) into one action called In re
Inspire Shareholders Litig., C.A. 6328-VCP.

On May 3, 2011, all parties to the consolidated Delaware Chancery
Court action executed a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to
which, among other things, the parties will enter into a
definitive settlement agreement, whereby they will move to certify
conditionally the consolidated action as a class action and will
move to dismiss all claims.  The settlement of the consolidated
Delaware Chancery Court action is subject to negotiation of
definitive settlement documentation and approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery and is conditioned upon consummation of the
Merger.

The Company believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are
without merit and it intends to defend such claims vigorously.
Due to the preliminary nature of all the suits, the Company is
unable at this time to estimate their outcome.


INTL FCSTONE: Discovery in Class Action in Missouri Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit filed
against a subsidiary of INTL FCStone Inc. in Missouri, according
to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

FCStone Group, Inc. and certain officers of FCStone were named as
defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.  A
consolidated amended complaint was subsequently filed on
September 25, 2009.  As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to
be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone
common stock between November 15, 2007 and February 24, 2009.  The
CAC seeks to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns
disclosures included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008 related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account.  FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss the
action.  Although the Court denied that motion on November 16,
2010, it limited the action to the public disclosures made on
November 3 and 4, 2008 related to the energy trading account.  The
action is now in discovery and plaintiffs are currently seeking to
certify the relevant class as those stockholders who purchased
FCStone stock between April 14, 2008 and February 24, 2009.  The
Company and the FCStone defendants believe the action is meritless
and the FCStone defendants are defending this action vigorously.


INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. is awaiting court approval of its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint brought against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against FCStone Group, Inc. and its directors, as well
as the Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company.  This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals.  The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds.  That motion is fully
briefed and pending decision.


JAMES LATHAM PETERS: To Face Class Action Over Hep. C Infections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that the Victorian Government could face a multi-
million dollar law suit, after a doctor was charged with infecting
54 women with hepatitis C.

James Latham Peters is accused of passing the virus on to his
patients, while working at an abortion clinic in Melbourne's east.

Most of the victims have already started a class action lawsuit.

The Medical Practitioners Board and the Health Department could
both face a group compensation claim.


JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Suit vs. i2 Tech
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDA Software Group Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement agreement in the putative shareholder class action
relating to its acquisition of i2 Technologies Inc., according to
the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In December, 2009, the Company was sued in a putative shareholder
class action against i2 Technologies Inc. and its board of
directors, in the County Court of Law No. 2 of Dallas County (No.
CC-09-08476-B).  The plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that the
directors of i2 breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of
i2 by selling i2 to the Company via an allegedly unfair process
and at an unfair price, and that the Company aided and abetted
this alleged breach.  On January 26, 2010, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that sought to
enjoin the merger between JDA and i2.  The plaintiffs subsequently
filed an amended complaint, alleging unspecified monetary damages
in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.  The Company, i2 and i2's directors have denied all
allegations.  The parties agreed upon a settlement agreement,
dated February 1, 2011.  The Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement on March 3, 2011.  Final Court approval of
the Settlement Agreement was scheduled for May 20, 2011.  The
Settlement Agreement, if it receives final approval by the Court,
will provide that (i) the pendency and prosecution of the lawsuit
and the efforts of plaintiffs' counsel were a reason and cause for
the decision by i2's then board of directors to provide additional
disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about November 19,
2009, in connection with the Company's acquisition of i2 and (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the court for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs of $0.5 million to be paid by i2, which
will be funded by its director's and officers' liability insurer.


JET WIN FOOD: Recalls Contaminated Taiwanese Beverage
-----------------------------------------------------
A product recall and announcement by the Hong Kong Government has
pushed residents to stop drinking a Taiwanese product suspected of
contamination, China CSR reports.

Hong Kong's Centre for Food Safety has urged the public not to
consume three kinds of energy drinks produced in Taiwan, which
might have been contaminated with Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate/Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).

A spokesman for the CFS stated it had received notification from
the Taiwanese authority that consignments of three kinds of drinks
had been distributed to Hong Kong.  Those drinks are Speed Sports
Drink 600ml, Speed Sports Drink (Lemon Flavour) 600ml, and Dong
Nung 1000 Sports Drink.

The report says that the origin of the problem is reportedly
believed to be use of a clouding agent in the drinks which has
been adulterated with DEHP, a plasticizer.  The report adds that
the CFS has contacted one of the importers, Jet Win Food Ltd.,
which indicated that it was now recalling the affected products on
its initiative.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the putative class action lawsuit
filed by representatives of nursing home residents in California,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2011.

In April 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by representatives of nursing home residents or their
estates against the Company, Omnicare, Inc., and other
unidentified companies or individuals.  In February 2011,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting that certain
rebate agreements between the Company and Omnicare increased the
amount of money spent on pharmaceuticals by the nursing home
residents and violated the Sherman Act and the California Business
& Professions Code.  The second amended complaint also asserts a
claim of unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek multiple forms of
monetary and injunctive relief.  The Company moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint in March 2011.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Race Discrimination Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2004, Plaintiffs, in an employment discrimination
litigation initiated against Johnson & Johnson in 2001 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, moved
to certify a class of all African American and Hispanic salaried
employees of the Company and its affiliates in the United States,
who were employed at any time from November 1997 to the present.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the period 1997 through the
present (including punitive damages) and equitable relief.  The
Court denied Plaintiffs' class certification motion in December
2006 and their motion for reconsideration in April 2007.
Plaintiffs sought to appeal these decisions and, in April 2008,
the Court of Appeals ruled that Plaintiffs' appeal of the denial
of class certification was untimely.  In July 2009, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for certification of a modified class, which the
Company opposed.  The District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion in
July 2010, and the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for
leave to appeal the denial of certification of the modified class.

The Company says it will continue to defend against Plaintiffs'
individual claims of discrimination.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Is Ongoing in Suit Against OCD Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit against Johnson &
Johnson's subsidiary, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., currently
pending in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.

In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., received a grand
jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, requesting documents and information for the
period beginning September 1, 2000 through the present, pertaining
to an investigation of alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
the blood reagents industry.  OCD complied with the subpoena.  In
February 2011, OCD received a letter from the Antitrust Division
indicating that it had closed its investigation in November 2010.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that OCD had
received a grand jury subpoena, multiple class action complaints
seeking damages for alleged price fixing were filed against OCD.
The various cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Discovery is ongoing.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing in McNeil-Related Suit Set for June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Johnson & Johnson's and other defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the consolidated class action
lawsuit relating to the McNeil recalls is currently set for
June 29, 2011, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 3, 2011

Starting in May 2010, multiple complaints seeking class action
certification related to the McNeil recalls have been filed
against McNeil Consumer Healthcare and certain affiliates,
including the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Central District of California, the Southern
District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Missouri.  These
consumer complaints allege generally that purchasers of various
McNeil medicines are owed monetary damages and penalties because
they paid premium prices for defective medications rather than
less expensive alternative medications.  All but one complaint
seeks certification of a nation-wide class of purchasers of these
medicines, whereas one complaint, the Harvey case, seeks
certification of a class of Motrin(R) IB purchasers in Missouri.
In October 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated all of the consumer complaints, except for the
Harvey case, which was consolidated in March 2011, for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs in all of the cases
except the Harvey case filed a "Consolidated Amended Civil
Consumer Class Action Complaint" (CAC) naming additional parties
and claims on January 2011.  Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC, which motion is scheduled to be heard on June 29,
2011.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Monk" Suit Remains Pending in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of the Company, failed to disclose that a number of
manufacturing facilities were failing to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock has declined significantly.  Plaintiffs seek to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to
recover their alleged economic losses.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff Appeals From Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen, L.P., according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.

Starting in July 2006, five suits were filed in United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by various employers
and employee benefit plans and funds seeking to recover amounts
they paid for RISPERDAL(R) for plan participants.  In general,
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its
pharmaceutical subsidiaries engaged in off-label marketing of
RISPERDAL(R) in violation of the federal and New Jersey RICO
statutes.  In addition, Plaintiffs asserted various state law
claims.  All of the cases were consolidated into one case seeking
class action status, but shortly thereafter, one action was
voluntarily dismissed.  In December 2008, the Court dismissed the
actions of the four remaining plaintiffs.

In April 2010, those plaintiffs filed a new consolidated class
action against the Company and Janssen, L.P. (now OMJ
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.); and in March 2011, that action was
dismissed.  In April 2011, one of those plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


L-1 IDENTITY: Negotiates With Parties to Resolve Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the consolidated shareholder class action litigation
against L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc., are negotiating the terms of
a definitive settlement agreement that will resolve the lawsuit,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in five putative shareholder
class actions filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial
District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, arising out of the
transactions with Safran SA and BAE Systems Information Solutions,
Inc., pursuant to the Merger Agreement and BAE Purchase Agreement.
The actions were captioned: Michael Palma v. Robert LaPenta et
al., CV-10-6006781-S (Conn. Super. Ct.), Barry P. Kranz, Jr. v. L-
1 Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006760-S (Conn. Super. Ct.),
Michael Matteo v. L-1 Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006759-S
(Conn. Super. Ct.), Dart Seasonal Products Retirement Plan v. L-1
Identity Solutions et al., CV-10-6006835-S (Conn. Super. Ct.), and
George F. Chrisman v. Robert LaPenta et al., CV-10-6006886-S
(Conn. Super. Ct.).

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions generally alleged the
members of the L-1 Board of Directors and certain officers of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by, among
other things, allegedly failing to receive maximum value for their
shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and
agreeing to certain terms in the proposed merger agreement with
Safran that allegedly discourage competing offers from other
potential bidders and/or benefit defendants.  The Shareholder
Actions generally alleged that the Company aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Certain of the suits also
alleged claims against Safran, Merger Sub, BAE and BAE Systems,
Inc. (the parent entity to BAE and the U.S. affiliate of BAE
Systems plc) for aiding and abetting the foregoing alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Shareholder Actions generally
sought preliminary and permanent relief, including, among other
things, permission to proceed as a class action, declaratory
relief declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties, an injunction enjoining the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement and BAE Purchase Agreement, rescissionary
damages in the event that the Transactions are consummated, costs
and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On December 1, 2010, the plaintiffs reported that they had agreed
on a lead counsel and lead plaintiff structure whereby the Matteo,
Kranz & Dart Seasonal Products Retirement Plan plaintiffs became
co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel co-lead counsel.  On
December 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointing a leadership structure consisting of Kranz
and Dart Seasonal Products Retirement Plan as Lead Plaintiffs, the
law firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, and the law firms of Wofsey
Rosen Kweskin Kuriansky, LLP and Diserio Martin O'Connor &
Castiglioni LLP as Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs.  The caption
for the consolidated cases is: In re L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. X05-FST-CVIO-6006759-S.

On December 6, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Limited
Expedited Discovery and for a Briefing and Hearing Schedule on
Plaintiffs' Anticipated Motion for Equitable Relief and Objection
to Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff's Discovery Requests in the Court.  On December 10 and
13, 2010, the Company and the other defendants (except the BAE
defendants who had already filed motions to strike and to stay),
respectively, filed motions to strike the Complaint and motions to
stay discovery pending adjudication of the motions to strike and
objections to Lead Plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery.

On December 15, 2010, after arm's length negotiations, the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
litigation, which will be memorialized in a final settlement
agreement to be submitted to the Court for approval.  Pursuant to
the MOU, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures
in the Final Proxy.  Additionally, pursuant to the MOU, the
plaintiffs conducted confirmatory discovery to confirm the
fairness and reasonableness of the terms of the settlement.  The
parties are in the process of negotiating the terms of a
definitive settlement agreement that, upon finalization, would be
expected to be submitted to the Court for approval.

The Company says it continues to vigorously deny any and all
liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the
action.


L-1 IDENTITY: Remains a Defendant in Old Digimarc Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.'s August 2008
acquisition of Digimarc Corporation or Old Digimarc, which
consisted of its Secure ID Business following the spin-off of its
digital watermarking business, the Company assumed certain legal
proceedings of Old Digimarc.

Beginning in May 2001, a number of substantially identical class
action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities
laws were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming approximately 300 companies,
including Old Digimarc, certain officers and directors and certain
underwriters of the companies' initial public offerings as
defendants.  The complaints were subsequently consolidated into a
single action, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
April 2002.  The amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that the underwriters of Old Digimarc's initial public offering
violated securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged
compensation arrangements in Old Digimarc's initial public
offering registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of Old Digimarc's
stock in the aftermarket subsequent to the initial public
offering.  Old Digimarc and certain of its officers and directors
are named in the amended complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged failure
to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements
and manipulative practices.  The complaint sought unspecified
damages.  In July 2002, the claims against Old Digimarc under
Section 10(b) were dismissed.  In October 2002, the individual
officer and director defendants were dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to tolling agreements.  Subsequent addenda to these
tolling agreements extended the tolling period through August 27,
2010.  In June 2004, a stipulation of partial settlement among the
plaintiffs, the companies, and the officers and directors was
submitted to the District Court.  While the partial settlement was
pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate their
claims against the underwriter defendants.  The district court
directed that the litigation proceed within a number of "focus
cases" rather than in all of the 309 cases that had been
consolidated.  Old Digimarc was not one of these focus cases.

In October 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as
class actions.  The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling
and, on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the district court's class certification decision
for the six focus cases.  In light of the Second Circuit opinion,
in June 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the
settlement.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second
consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus
cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class
certification.  On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in
the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended
class action complaints.  The court issued an opinion and order on
March 26, 2008, denying the motions to dismiss except as to
Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
The class certification motion was withdrawn without prejudice on
October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of
settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants (including Old
Digimarc) and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.  Old Digimarc's portion of the
settlement, which is wholly immaterial, is covered entirely by
insurance.

On June 10, 2009, the Judge granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on October 5, 2009, the Judge granted final
approval of the settlement.  On August 26, 2010, based on the
expiration of the tolling period stated in the tolling agreements
with the individual officers and directors, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and Recommencement of
Litigation against the named officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not intend to take any
further action against the named officers and directors at this
time.  Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final approval
were filed by six groups of appellants.  In October 2010, four of
the groups of appellants withdrew their appeals with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the
remaining appeals based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record, and moved
to dismiss the other appeal based on alleged lack of standing.  It
is unclear when the Second Circuit will rule on these motions.

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


LAS VEGAS SAND: Consolidated Class Action Still Pending in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sand Corp. continues to defend itself from an amended
consolidated class action complaint filed in Nevada, according to
the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William
P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1,
2007 through November 6, 2008.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008.  The
complaint, which is substantially similar to the Fosbre
litigation, seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On November 1, 2010, a purported
class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner.
The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  This action
is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based
on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of this matter.  The Company intends to
defend this matter vigorously.


LOCAL.COM CORP: DGLP-Related Suit in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange,
against Local.com Corporation, Digital Post Interactive, Inc. --
DGLP -- and the directors of DGLP, Michael Sawtell, Steven Dong,
and Brian Goss by Chris Leite, an individual and purported
shareholder of DGLP on behalf of himself and others alleged to be
similarly situated. The complaint alleges that DGLP and its
directors have breached their fiduciary duties to DGLP's
shareholders and that the Company aided and abetted the breach in
connection with the proposed acquisition by the Company of the
assets of Rovion, Inc., the wholly-owned subsidiary of DGLP,
pursuant to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement by and between
DGLP and the Company dated February 11, 2011. On April 11, 2011
this putative class action lawsuit was dismissed, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


LOGITECH INT'L: Intends to Defend Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Revill, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Computer technology company Logitech International S.A. will mount
a strong defense against three class action law suits launched by
shareholders who claim they were misled over Logitech's March
profit warning, the President of Logitech's European division said
Thursday.

The claim that the Swiss maker of computer peripherals withheld
important information ahead of its March profit warning is
entirely without foundation, Junien Labrousse told Dow Jones
Newswires in an interview.

"Of course we are going to fight this.  We absolutely believe that
this law suit is without any foundation," Mr. Labrousse said.

Shareholders have accused Logitech of failing to disclose that its
distributors were overstocked, that promotions weren't going to
plan and that demand from Europe and the Middle East was below
internal expectations.

"As a result, Logitech's positive statements [in the five months
prior to the profit warning] were materially false and
misleading," law firm Izard Nobel LLP said.

The law suits have been initiated in New York by Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Izard Nobel LLP and the Briscoe Law Firm PLLC.

Logitech lowered its full-year outlook for fiscal 2011 on
March 31, pushing the shares down around 19%.

It said it expected full year sales of between $2.35 billion and
$2.37 billion, down from the previous range of $2.4 billion to
$2.42 billion.  Operating income was expected to be reduced to
between $140 million and $150 million, down from the previously
expected $170 million to $180 million.

"When we made our outlook in January, it was 100% in line with the
information we had at the time.  But things happened differently
to what we expected," Mr. Labrousse said.

He said it took time for Logitech to get the sales data and check
it, and the information was revealed to shareholders at the
earliest possible opportunity.

"We know exactly what we did; we have checks and balances to make
sure information is delivered in the right way and the right
time," Mr. Labrousse said.

"We are going to mount a very strong defense because we believe we
are on very solid ground."

Similar actions are brought against around 200 quoted companies
every year in the U.S., Mr. Labrousse said, with around a third
dismissed by the court.  Less than 1% go to court, he added.

He said: "I don't know what's going to happen, but statistically
speaking, I think this is unlikely to go ahead."

Since the end of March Logitech shares have lost more than 36% of
their value.  On May 26, at 12:10 GMT, the shares were down 1% at
CHF10.47 while the Swiss Market Index was up 0.3%.

The company said it had legal insurance which could cover its
legal costs.

Vontobel analyst, Michael Foeth, said he thought it unlikely the
class action would succeed, given the company posted solid third-
quarter results on Jan. 26, but noted that in any case, Logitech
will be confronted with legal fees.

The company had regular court and legal costs, for example in
resolving disputes over intellectual property rights.

Another analyst, who asked not to be named, said: "Logitech was
affected by a lot of unusual events in the quarter -- the retail
slowdown in the U.K, problems in southern Europe, the Japanese
earthquake.

"For the law company to say they should have seen this coming at
the beginning of the quarter is not a view I would subscribe to.

"You can lose money with stocks; if you don't want to take that
risk you should put your money in a savings account."


MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Ordered to File Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court has ordered the lead plaintiff to file
a consolidated shareholder class action complaint against MannKind
Corporation by June 27, 2011, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Following the receipt by the Company of the Complete Response
letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration
regarding the new drug application for AFREZZA in January 2011 and
the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, several
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its
common stock.  The complaints include claims asserted under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been brought
as purported shareholder class actions.  In general, the
complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding its business and
prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  The complaints have been transferred to
a single court and consolidated for all purposes.  The court has
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and has ordered the
lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint by June 27, 2011.
The Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties of a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit against
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation have agreed to stay a motion
for class certification, according to the Company's May 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24,
2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements
in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the Court granted the Company's and
other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010 the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on or about
August 9, 2010, the Court denied the Company's and other
defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the
defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 8, 2011. The
Company is in active discussions with the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, as well as the plaintiffs in derivative lawsuits, in
pursuit of a collective resolution of the class action and the
derivative lawsuits. The parties have agreed to stay the class
action plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class action
certification pending final settlement. In the event the matter is
not settled, the Company will continue to vigorously defend the
claims in the class action and derivative lawsuits. There can be
no assurance that the Company will be successful in its settlement
discussions or in defending the lawsuits, and an adverse
resolution of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the lawsuits are resolved.


MEDIFAST INC: Continues to Defend Two Class Suits in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medifast Inc. continues to defend itself from two class action
lawsuits filed by Oren Proter and Fred Greenberg in Maryland,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

On March 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter, et
al v. Medifast, Inc., et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of
damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.
On March 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg
v Medifast, Inc. et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776{BEL}, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b)5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10(b)5 promulgated under Section 10(b)5 of the
Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of
damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each
complaint and intends to vigorously defend each proceeding.
Accordingly, the Company believes that either proceeding is not
likely to have a material adverse effect upon its business or
operations.


MERIAL LTD: Sued for Firing Head Over Class Action Document
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that the maker of
Heartgard Plus, a heartworm drug used by millions of dog owners,
"extortionately fired" its "global head of pharmacovigilance"
after she refused to destroy a document relevant to a class action
lawsuit regarding the drug's effectiveness, Kari Blaho-Owens,
Ph.D., claims in Federal Court.

Ms. Blaho-Owens says she had been global head of pharmacovigilance
for 4 years for defendant Merial, Ltd., a British pharmaceutical
firm, at its Gwinnett County office when she was fired in July
2010.  Her responsibilities included ensuring that standard
practices for compliance, innovation and procedures were followed.

In 2005, before she was hired, Merial conducted an internal
investigation on an "increase in the number of reported cases of
the lack of efficacy of Heartgard," according to the complaint.

The investigation was conducted after Merial received a Nov. 30,
2004 letter from the U.S. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine,
which "noted that there were numerous reports of ineffectiveness
for heart worm prevention despite 'Heartgard Plus' being used
according to the labeled directions," the complaint states.

"At this time, FDA-CVM notified Merial that the adverse event data
Merial had submitted to gain FDA's approval (pre-approval
performance data) was not consistent with its adverse event data
that was being reported after the drug became available on the
market (post approval data).  This means that the adverse events
Merial received after the FDA approved the product to be marketed
in the United States was not consistent with what Merial had
provided to FDA to obtain marketing approval from FDA."

After reviewing the findings of that internal investigation,
Dr. Blaho-Owens says she "discovered that Merial had been aware of
serious lack of efficacy adverse events reported regarding
'Heartgard Plus' since as early as 2002."

The complaint continues: "Had Merial appropriately monitored their
post marketing data, the company should have known and notified
FDA-CVM at a much earlier time, at least back to 2000 that its
marketing and promotional advertisement, as well as the drugs' FDA
approved label was no longer accurate."

Dr. Blaho-Owens said the situation concerned her fellow
executives, who worried "that FDA-CVM would require a change in
the written label for 'Heartgard Plus'.  This new labeling would
require that the adverse event listing specify that 'Heartguard
[sic] Plus' was not 100% effective in preventing dogs from
becoming infested with heartworms.  Thus, anyone who read the
'Heartgard' product package or label would now be aware that
'Heartgard' was not 100% effective in preventing heartworm disease
and all of its sequelae, including death of the animal."

This would put Merial's product at a competitive disadvantage.

Dr. Blaho-Owens says the company responded by announcing that its
"investigation showed that the increase in lack of effectiveness
claims was the direct result of increases in sales, lack of
compliance on the part of the owner, etc. -- not product failure
of the active ingredients in 'Heartgard' products."

Dr. Blaho-Owens says she was given a copy of this study, and the
raw data used in its analysis, shortly after she became global
head of pharmacovigilance, which study states, among other things:

"a. The statistical analysis used in the 2005 study does not
conform to recognized scientific standards.

b. The study was not blinded, and was conducted using 'cherry-
picked' data, so as the persons evaluating the data would be led
to support the conclusion sought by Merial, i.e., that the drug
was 100% effective.

c. The study included and evaluated only 7% of the total number of
'Heartgard Plus' cases.

d. . . . Despite Dr. Blaho-Owens' efforts, including reporting to
her supervisors and meetings with multiple persons within the
finance department, no one within Merial would take responsibility
or remedy these problems.  Thus, because high level management was
aware of the methods used in this study, it is difficult to
understand how the conclusions of this study could have been
accepted. . . . Therefore, the rates of lack of efficacy for
'Heartgard Plus' documented in the 2005 study could not be
scientifically reliable."

Dr. Blaho-Owens said that over the next few years, as Merial
continued to try to delay the labeling change, she repeatedly
raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the company's
reports to the FDA.

Finally, Dr. Blaho-Owens says, she "came across documentation from
another Merial employee in Lyon, France, F. Beugnet, who had done
his own statistical analysis and determined that 'Heartgard Plus'
was not 100% effective, but was only 95% effective."

In September 2009, Merial was named in a class-action lawsuit
regarding 'Heartguard,' [sic] and the company's director of U.S.
regulatory affairs "instructed Dr. Blaho-Owens to destroy a
document that was likely relevant to the pending class action
lawsuit and was in her possession," the complaint states.

Dr. Blaho Owens says the company official "also instructed [her]
to stop generating any new analysis of data regarding 'Heartguard'
despite her ongoing concerns relating to the LOE [undefined -
presumably lack of effectiveness] of 'Heartguard'."

She says she did not destroy the document, but reported the
exchange to Merial's legal counsel.  She says that led Merial to
retaliate by putting her on a "performance improvement plan, which
cited a 'lack of understanding of differences in levels of
priorities' between Dr. Blaho-Owens and management."

She says she was fired after she filed a claim of retaliation with
the Labor Department's OSHA division.

Dr. Blaho-Owens seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction and
damages, including reinstatement with back pay, interest and
benefits from July 29, 2010 to May 31, 2011, for violations of
whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Blaho-Owens v. Merial, Limited, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01720 (N.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/31/Heartworm.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
          Kirby G. Smith, Esq.
          THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
          246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 404-378-1290


META FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Still Faces "GACU" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Meta Financial Group Inc. continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit filed by Guardian Angel Credit
Union, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  In all, nine
cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, three have been
dismissed, and four have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  Of the two remaining cases, one is a class
action case.  On May 5, 2010, in that class action, Guardian Angel
Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC,
District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.


META FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Meta Financial
Group Inc. for alleged violations of federal securities laws is
still pending in Iowa, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In October and November, 2010, former stockholders Thirumalesh
Bhat and Alaa M. Elgaouni filed separate purported class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa against the Company and  certain of its officers
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws.  The
lawsuits, which purport to be brought on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's stock between May 14, 2009 and October 15,
2010, allege that the Company and the named officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements allegedly made during this period by
the Company and its officers.  On December 15, 2010, Mr. Bhat
voluntarily dismissed his complaint.  In the remaining matter,
renamed by the Court as In re Meta Financial Group, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, former stockholder Eden Partnership was
named lead plaintiff on January 12, 2011.  On April 11, 2011
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them.  Briefing on
Defendants' motion is expected to be complete by May 30, 2011 and
a ruling by the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss is expected
some time thereafter.  All discovery is stayed during pendency of
Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The complaint
does not specify an amount of damages sought.  The Company denies
the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously pursue
its defense.  An estimate of the Company's possible loss cannot be
made because of the early stage of the litigation.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court's decision dismissing a class action
complaint against MGIC Investment Corporation remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to
the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County.  Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.  Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to
summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears
the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in the
Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss
development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS,
including its liquidity.  The Company's motion to dismiss the
Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010.  On March 18, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint.  The
Amended Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers
named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing
to properly account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The
Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect
to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
On December 8, 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  On January 6, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the
February 18, 2010 and December 8, 2010 decisions to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of these
consolidated cases or estimate its associated expenses or possible
losses.  Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws
could be brought against the Company.

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


MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Song-Beverly Act Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act of 1971, according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.  The
Carson suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code)
as part of a credit card transaction.  The plaintiff sought
statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.  The
Company contested certification of this claim as a class action
and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.  On March 9, 2009, the
Court dismissed the case with prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed
this decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth
District, San Diego.

On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the
case.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court
of California.  On September 29, 2010, the California Supreme
Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review; however, it
stayed any further proceedings in the case until another similar
zip code case pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma,
was decided.  On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court
ruled, in the Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally
identifiable information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act of 1971, as amended prohibits businesses from requesting
or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card
transaction.

On April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court transferred the Carson case
back to the Court of Appeal with directions to the Court to
reconsider its decision in light of Pineda decision.  In April
2011, the Company asked the Court of Appeal to consider affirming
the San Diego Superior Court's order dismissing the claim on an
alternative ground unaffected by Pineda and the ruling is
anticipated in August 2011.  The Company says it is reviewing the
matter in light of this recent decision and, at this time, it is
unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, in this case.
Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on
February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed
against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego
Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend each of these cases and it is unable, at this time, to
estimate a range of loss, if any.


MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated Wage Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit filed by Jose Tijero and Amanda Godfrey
against Michaels Stores, Inc., remains pending in California,
according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

On February 12, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
on May 7, 2009, by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for the
Company's Aaron Brothers stores as a purported class action
proceeding on behalf of himself and all current and former hourly
retail employees employed by Aaron Brothers in California.  On
July 12, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed on
July 9, 2010, by Amanda Godfrey, a former Aaron Brothers' hourly
employee alleging similar allegations as in the Tijero suit.  On
October 15, 2010, the cases were consolidated and re-filed in the
United States District Court -- Northern District of California.
These suits allege that Aaron Brothers failed to pay all wages and
overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate
meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), failed to
timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld wages and failed to
provide accurate wage statements and further alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.  The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break
penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate
a range of loss, if any, in this case.


MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Consumer Law Violation Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., continues to face class action lawsuits in
California over alleged unlawful and unfair business practices and
false advertising, according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc., in the San
Diego Superior Court, on behalf of himself and all similarly-
situated California consumers.  The Rattray suit alleges causes of
action for unlawful and unfair business practices and false
advertising under the California Business and Professions Code,
and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for
misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards are not redeemable for
cash and for failure to disclose that the plaintiff could redeem
the unused cash balance on a gift card when the value fell below
$10.  On March 15, 2011, the matter was mediated and a tentative
settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiff for an
immaterial amount, which continues to be subject to Court
approval.  Subsequently, on April 25, 2011, Shirley Polak and
Billie Lavrov, consumers, filed a purported class action
proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the County of Los
Angeles Superior Court, on behalf of themselves and all similarly-
situated California consumers.  The Polak/Lavrov complaint
significantly mirrors the claims in the Rattray case and the
Company intends to vigorously defend the case.  The Company says
it is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, in this case.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Stock Option Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself and certain
of its current and former officers and directors against
stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits
pending in California.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated.  Claims were
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The allegations set forth in
the complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's
press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's
financial statements could not be relied on due to the Company's
historical stock option practices and related accounting.  The
complaints sought to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief.  In November 2010,
the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave
final approval to a stipulated $10 million settlement agreement,
which was covered by the Company's director and officer insurance
policies.

Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of
2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits,
and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery
continues in these matters.  The Company and plaintiffs in the
federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but
have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims.

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


MURPHY OIL: Faces Class Action Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Murphy Oil and Shell are the
first two of more than 90 defendants in a federal class action
that claims the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions intensified
hurricane Katrina and contribute to rising sea levels that
threaten property and its value along the Gulf Coast.

A copy of the Complaint in Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00220 (S.D. Miss.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/31/Climate.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
          Carl D. "Todd" Campbell, III, Esq.
          F. GERALD MAPLES, P.A.
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2650
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 569-8732
          E-mail: federal@fgmapleslaw.com


NELNET INC: Plea for Reconsideration in "Bais Yaakov" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc., is seeking reconsideration of the
denial of its motion to dismiss a purported class action captioned
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, pending in
New Jersey, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 5, 2011, Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, a subsidiary of the
Company, was served with a Summons and First Amended Complaint
which had been filed on January 4, 2011 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The First Amended Complaint
alleged that Peterson's had sent to the Plaintiff in 2008 and 2009
six facsimiles advertising products or services offered by
Peterson's, that such facsimiles were not sent as the result of
express invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff, and
that Peterson's had failed to include certain opt out language in
those facsimile transmissions.  The First Amended Complaint
alleged that such acts violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes.  The Plaintiff further included allegations that Peterson's
had sent putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that
violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5.0 million in
statutory penalty damages and more than $15.0 million if trebled
for willful violations. The Plaintiff included allegations in the
First Amended Complaint seeking to establish a class action for
two different classes of plaintiffs:  Class A, to whom Peterson's
sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements containing opt out
notices similar to those contained in the faxes received by the
Plaintiff; and Class B, to whom Peterson's sent facsimile
advertisements containing opt out notices similar to those
contained in the faxes received by the Plaintiff.  No class has
yet been established or recognized by the court.

Peterson's filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint on February 16, 2011. The Motion to Dismiss was denied
by the Court on April 15, 2011 without oral argument. On April 29,
2011, Peterson's filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
Order on the Motion to Dismiss.

Peterson's intends to continue to contest the suit vigorously.


NEVADA HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS: Sued Over Collection Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that with lawsuits
piling up and the Nevada Legislature debating caps on fees imposed
by homeowner association collection agencies, investors in
foreclosed homes on May 25 filed a new class-action complaint
against more than 500 Nevada homeowner associations.

The complaint was filed by Las Vegas attorneys James Adams, Esq.,
and Pouy Premsrirut, Esq., with the state Real Estate Division's
Ombudsman for Owners in Common Interest Communities and
Condominium Hotels.

Mr. Adams and Ms. Premsrirut regularly sue collection agencies.
Ms. Premsrirut, also an investor in foreclosed homes, has been
sued by collection agencies who say she's been abusing the legal
system.

Ms. Premsrirut denies those allegations and says the collection
agencies for years have been charging unauthorized fees and
bullying homeowners by threatening to foreclose on homes over
unpaid collection costs.

The new complaint says the HOAs have unlawfully allowed collection
agencies to collect costs that were never incurred by the HOAs.

The complaint is a challenge to the practice of homeowner
associations of imposing what investors call an excessive "super
priority lien" against foreclosed homes that must be paid by the
investor, bank or homeowner acquiring the property at the
foreclosure sale.

The Nevada Financial Institutions Division last year limited the
amount collected -- including collection costs -- to nine months
of assessments.  Collection agencies have appealed that ruling.

The new complaint says the HOAs "are making improper, inaccurate
and/or excessive demands, through themselves or by their agents
. . . for claimed collection fees and costs which (the HOAs) did
not actually incur nor were liable for at the time of the lien or
demand, and for claimed lien amounts which have been extinguished
by law, extinguished by the covenants, conditions and
restrictions, or are otherwise unlawful or improper."

"There is no provision at law which permits (the HOAs) to
authorize the debt collector to unilaterally assess and charge to
(plaintiffs) any and all fees and costs not incurred by (the HOAs)
that the debt collector wishes to charge in the collection of past
due obligations," the complaint alleges.

Chris Yergensen, senior vice president of collection agency RMI
Management LLC, parent of Red Rock Financial Services, said last
week's complaint by Mr. Adams and Ms. Premsrirut is just another
in a series of actions they have filed aimed at lining the pockets
of investors in foreclosed homes at the expense of homeowners who
responsibly pay their HOA assessments.

Mr. Yergensen said if Mr. Adams and Ms. Premsrirut are successful
in preventing HOAs from collecting collection costs, "Someone else
is going to have to pay those costs."

"It would shift the cost to the responsible homeowner," he said.

RMI and Red Rock Financial Services, he added, are satisfied with
new regulations from the state Commission for Common-Interest
Communities and Condominium Hotels limiting collection fees over
unpaid HOA assessments to $1,950 plus "costs,"  Mr. Yergensen said
in a worst-case foreclosure scenario those costs wouldn't exceed
$700.

Mr. Adams and Ms. Premsrirut, in the meantime, aren't the only
ones challenging collection costs assessed against foreclosed
homes.

A Bank of America subsidiary sued scores of Nevada homeowner
associations over the same issue in January and that lawsuit is
pending.

Last week's new class action complaint seeks unspecified damages,
including punitive damages, an "accounting of monies improperly
taken" from the investors and orders stopping the collection
practices at issue.


NORTHWEST PIPE: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss Suit to Ends
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on Northwest Pipe Company's and other defendants' motions
to dismiss the consolidated securities lawsuit against them
concluded May 24, 2011, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned
Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the
Company's stock.  In addition to the Company, Brian W. Dunham, the
Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer,
are named as defendants.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false or misleading statements between April 23, 2008 and
November 11, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons
who purchased the Company's stock during the same period, and
seeks damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL, was filed against the Company in the same
court on December 22, 2009.  In addition to the Company, Brian W.
Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R. Tagmyer, the Company's
current Chairman of the Board, are named as defendants in the
Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint, as in the Richard
complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the Company's
stock and asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading
statements between April 23, 2008 and November 11, 2009.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during that period, and seeks damages for losses
caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  Defendants and lead plaintiff subsequently
agreed that defendants did not need to respond immediately to
either of the two outstanding complaints, and that a consolidated
amended complaint would be filed within 45 days of the Company
having completed the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 and its 2009 Form 10-K
with the SEC.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar motions
filed by the individual defendants.  Under the scheduling order
currently in effect, briefing on those motions will conclude by
May 24, 2011.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.  This securities litigation is at an early stage
and, at this time, it is not possible to predict its outcome, the
Company says.  Therefore, it has not accrued any charges related
to this litigation.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Court to Hear Summary Judgment Plea on June 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California will consider Novatel Wireless, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims in the securities
litigation against it on June 17, 2011, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008, these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v.
Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB)
(Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D.
Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In
re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs filed
the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly
purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007 and
November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company
and certain of its current and former officers as defendants.  The
consolidated complaint alleges generally that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements during the relevant
time period regarding the strength of its products and market
share, its financial results and its internal controls.  The
plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs.
The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers
of Company common stock between February 27, 2007 and
September 15, 2008.  On February 14, 2011, following extensive
discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all
of plaintiffs' claims.  A trial date had been set for May 10,
2011.  On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new
district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the
reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's
consideration of dispositive motions.  The motion for summary
judgment was rescheduled for hearing on June 17, 2011.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The Company adds that it unable at this time to estimate the
effects of this lawsuit on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.


OLD SECOND BANCORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Second Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend against a purported
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and
Trust alleging that the Company, the Bank, the Employee Benefits
Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and certain of the Company's
officers and employees violated certain disclosure requirements
and fiduciary duties established under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.  The complaint seeks
equitable and as-of-yet unquantified monetary relief.

The Company believes that it, its affiliates and its officers and
employees have acted, and continue to act, in compliance with
ERISA law with respect to these matters, and they intend to
vigorously defend the allegations of the complaint.


OPTIONSEXPRESS: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits
challenging its proposed merger with The Charles Schwab
Corporation's subsidiary, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In March and April 2011, ten purported class action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of optionsXpress shareholders related to the
Schwab Merger.  These suits name optionsXpress, members of
optionsXpress' board of directors, Schwab and Neon Acquisition
Corp. as defendants.

Seven complaints have been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  Seven lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois: Kolton v. Gray, et al. (Civ.
Action No. 11CH10657) was filed on March 21, 2011; Page v.
optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11CH10845) was
filed on March 22, 2011; Thomas v. optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 11CH10898) was filed on March 22, 2011; Shotter
v. optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11CH11957) was
filed on March 29, 2011; Dworkin v. optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 11CH12445) was filed on March 31, 2011; Raymon v.
optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11CH12710) was
filed on April 4, 2011; and Marks v. optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.
et al. (Case No. 11CH12764) was filed on April 5, 2011.  By orders
dated April 6 and April 27, 2011 the Illinois Court consolidated
these lawsuits under the caption Kolton v. Gray, et al. (Civ.
Action No. 11CH10657).  Three additional lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware: Oakes v. Bennett,
et al. (C.A. No. 6314-VCL) was filed March 25, 2011; Collipi v.
optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 6337-VCL) was filed
April 1, 2011; and Kokolis v. optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., et al.
(C.A. No. 6353-VCL) was filed on April 6, 2011.  The Delaware
Chancery Court ordered these three lawsuits consolidated under the
caption In re optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
(Consolidated C.A. No. 6314-VCL) on April 25, 2011 and stayed the
action in favor of the Illinois consolidated action on April 28,
2011.

The complaints generally allege that (i) members of optionsXpress'
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to
optionsXpress' stockholders by approving the merger agreement at
an unfair price and through an unfair process and by agreeing to
certain deal protection devices; and (ii) the transaction unfairly
benefits certain members of optionsXpress' board of directors,
including the Chief Executive Officer, to the disadvantage of
other optionsXpress stockholders.  The complaints also allege that
Schwab and Neon Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants.  Additionally,
the consolidated Delaware complaint alleges optionsXpress' board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to optionsXpress
stockholders by failing to disclose material information related
to the Schwab Merger.  The complaints seek, among other relief, to
enjoin the transaction, rescission in the event the transaction is
completed, an order directing defendants to account to plaintiff
and other members of the putative class for all damages caused by
their breaches, and an award of costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees.

The Company believes these lawsuits to be without merit, and
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims.  There can be no
assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of the lawsuits.


PANTRY INC: Still Faces 7 Class Action Lawsuits in Kansas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry Inc. continues to defend itself from seven class action
lawsuits pending in a Kansas district court, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  To date, the Company has
been named as a defendant in seven cases: one in Florida (Cozza,
et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-
80156-DMM, filed 2/16/07); one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v.
Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-
00136, filed 3/7/07); one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.
Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed
3/26/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in
Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina
(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,
No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the
Company is named, have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all
pre-trial proceedings.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally
allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor
fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-
temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures,
contain less energy.  These cases seek, among other relief, an
order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting
equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices.  In
certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which the
Company is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because
defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-
temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount
of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.  Both types of cases
seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs, and prejudgment interest.  The defendants filed motions to
dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied
by the court on February 21, 2008.  A number of the defendants,
including the Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-
justiciable "political questions."  The Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on
December 3, 2009.  Defendants filed a request to appeal that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in June 2010.  That request was denied on  August 31,
2010.  In May 2010, the Court granted class certification to
Kansas fuel purchasers seeking implementation of automated
temperature controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred
ruling on any class for damages.  Defendants sought permission to
appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that
request was denied on August 31, 2010.

The Company continues to believe that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in these
lawsuits, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.  At
this stage of proceedings, the Company cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits.


PARNON ENERGY: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Crude Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mower, writing for Platts, reports that a New York oil trader
on May 26 filed a class action suit against Parnon Energy and
Arcadia Energy, and Nicholas Wildgoose and James Dyer, the
companies' derivatives trading directors, claiming they had
manipulated NYMEX crude prices.

The suit was brought in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Stephen E. Ardizzone, just two days after
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed against the same
parties.  The CFTC suit claimed "artificial spread prices" in WTI
swaps trade, created by the actions of the two companies in 2008,
led to profits of more than $50 million.

The Ardizzone suit mirrored the CFTC's.

"Beginning at least as early as December 1, 2007, and continuing
until a date unknown to Plaintiff, but believed to extend at least
until May 31, 2008, Defendants unlawfully manipulated the prices
of NYMEX WTI Derivatives contracts," Mr. Ardizzone said in the
suit.

Mr. Ardizzone, a resident of Staten Island, New York, claims to
have been injured as a result of "Defendants' anticompetitive acts
and market manipulation" as he was trading in WTI derivatives.

A person by the name of Stephen E. Ardizzone is listed as
president of Bluefin Energy and as the president of the Commodity
Floor Brokers and Traders Association.  But it could not be
determined if that was the same Mr. Ardizonne who filed the suit.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Awaits Final Decision in Spill-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras -- is awaiting a final
decision in class action lawsuits seeking payment of damages over
the 2001 oil spill in Parana, according to the Company's May 26,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 16, 2001, the Company's Araucaria-Paranagua pipeline
ruptured as a result of an unusual movement of the soil and
spilled approximately 15,059 gallons of fuel oil into several
rivers located in the State of Parana.  Within four days, the
Company cleaned the river surfaces, recovering approximately
13,738 gallons of fuel oil.  As a result of the accident:

   -- the Instituto Ambiental do Parana, or IAP, fined the
      Company R$150 million (U.S.$90 million), which was
      subsequently reduced to R$90 million (U.S.$54 million),
      which the Company is contesting on the basis that the IAP
      has failed to respond to the Company's proposed remedy
      within the three-year period specified under such proposal;
      and

   -- the Federal Public Ministry and the Parana State Public
      Ministry filed class actions against the Company seeking
      approximately R$3,100 million (U.S.$1,937 million) in
      damages.  In addition, the IAP filed a class action against
      the Company seeking environmental damages of approximately
      R$150 million (U.S.$90 million).  These actions have been
      joined before the Federal Public Ministry in Paranagua
      (Vara Federal de Paranagua), and await a final decision.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: $1.9-Mil. Settlement Reserve Reversed to Income
------------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation reversed into income during fiscal
2011 the remaining $1.9 million of its original $5 million reserve
in connection with its settlement of two class action lawsuits
filed by customers in California, according to the Company's May
26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 2, 2011.

On October 11, 2007, and November 2, 2007, two class action
lawsuits were filed by two customers in state court in California
asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the
Company's factory stores in California, the Company allegedly
required them to provide certain personal information at the
point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase.  The
plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in
California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide
their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit
cards to purchase items from the Company's stores, which allegedly
violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly Act.  The
complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The Company subsequently
had the actions moved to the United States District Court for the
Eastern and Central Districts of California.  Subsequently, the
parties agreed to settle these claims by agreeing that the Company
would issue $20 merchandise discount coupons with six month
expiration dates to eligible parties and would pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.  In connection with this settlement, the Company
recorded a $5 million reserve against its expected loss exposure
during the second quarter of Fiscal 2009.  The terms of the
settlement were later approved by the Court.  Accordingly, the
coupons were issued in February 2010 and expired on August 16,
2010.  Based on the coupon redemption experience, the Company
reversed $1.7 million of its original $5.0 million reserve into
income during Fiscal 2010, and the remaining $1.9 million of
reserves was reversed into income during Fiscal 2011.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: Records $4-Mil. Settlement Reserve in 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation recorded a $4 million reserve
against its expected loss exposure during the fourth quarter of
Fiscal 2010 in connection with its settlement of a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of California wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April
2, 2011.

On May 30, 2006, four former employees of the Company's Ralph
Lauren stores in Palo Alto and San Francisco, California, filed a
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.  The plaintiffs purported to
represent a class of employees who allegedly had been injured by
not properly being paid commission earnings, not being paid
overtime, not receiving rest breaks, being forced to work off of
the clock while waiting to enter or leave stores and being falsely
imprisoned while waiting to leave stores.  The complaint sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, damages for emotional
distress, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive and declaratory relief.  Subsequent to
answering the complaint, the Company had the action moved to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On July 8, 2008, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and subsequently denied the Company's motion
to decertify the class.  On November 5, 2008, the District Court
stayed litigation of the rest break claims pending the resolution
of a separate California Supreme Court case on the standards of
class treatment for rest break claims.

On January 25, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
to sever the rest break claims from the rest of the case and
denied the Company's motion to decertify the waiting time claims.
The District Court also ordered that a trial be held on the
waiting time and overtime claims, which commenced on March 8,
2010.  During trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle
all of the claims in the litigation, including the rest break
claims, for $4 million.  The District Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on May 21, 2010.  Class members had 60
days from the date of preliminary approval to submit claims or
object to the settlement.  Only a single objection to the
settlement was received from one former employee.  The Court
dismissed the objection and granted final approval of the
settlement on August 27, 2010.  In connection with this
settlement, the Company recorded a $4 million reserve against its
expected loss exposure during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2010.


PROLOGIS: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Colo. & Md.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ProLogis continues to defend itself from two consolidated class
action complaints filed in connection with its proposed merger
with AMB Property Corp., according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On January 30, 2011, the Company and three of its newly formed,
wholly owned subsidiaries, entered into a definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger with AMB Property Corporation, and AMB Property,
L.P. The merger and related integration is progressing as expected
and the Company anticipates closing will be in the second quarter
of 2011, subject to shareholder approval and other closing
conditions. The meeting of shareholders to consider and vote on
the merger was scheduled for June 1, 2011.  Subject to receipt of
shareholder approval, approval by the stockholders of AMB and
satisfaction or waiver of the other closing conditions, the
anticipated effective date of the Merger is June 3, 2011.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement, several
lawsuits were filed.  Three actions were filed in the District
Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado.  These cases
have been consolidated, and on or about April 1, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated class action complaint against ProLogis, the
members of its Board of Trustees, AMB, New Pumpkin Inc., Upper
Pumpkin LLC, Pumpkin LLC and AMB LP.  The complaint alleges that
the Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
entering into the merger agreement and that the Company, AMB, New
Pumpkin, Upper Pumpkin, Pumpkin and AMB LP aided and abetted the
breaches of those fiduciary duties.  The complaint further alleges
that the registration statement that was filed along with the
joint proxy statement/prospectus contained material omissions and
misstatements.  The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an order
to (i) enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger unless
and until they adopt and implement a procedure or process
reasonably designed to enter into a merger agreement providing the
best possible value for the Company's shareholders; (ii) direct
the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of their shareholders
and to refrain from entering into any transaction until the
process for the sale or merger of ProLogis is completed and the
highest possible value obtained; (iii) rescind the merger
agreement, to the extent already implemented; and (iv) award
plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of the action.  Defendants
have moved to stay the Colorado action in favor of the Maryland
action.  Plaintiffs have moved for expedited discovery, and the
defendants have opposed that motion.

Two actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland for
Baltimore City.  The actions have been consolidated, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action and derivative
complaint on or about March 28, 2011.  The Maryland consolidated
complaint names the same defendants as the Colorado consolidated
complaint.  The complaint alleges that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and
that AMB and AMB LP aided and abetted the breaches of those
fiduciary duties.  The complaint further alleges that the
registration statement that was filed along with the joint proxy
statement/prospectus is misleading and incomplete.  The plaintiffs
in this action seek, among other relief, an order to: (i) enjoin,
preliminarily and permanently, the merger; (ii) rescind the merger
in the event it is consummated or award rescissory damages; (iii)
direct the defendants to account to plaintiffs and all other
members of the class for all damages, profits and any special
benefits defendants obtained as a result of their breaches of
fiduciary duties; and (iv) award plaintiffs the costs of the
action. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Maryland action for
failure to state a claim and to stay all discovery pending a
ruling on their motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs have moved for
expedited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction
hearing.


PROSHARES TRUST: Consolidated Suit Remains Pending in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action against ProShares Trust II remains
pending in New York, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

ProShares Trust II, formerly known as the Commodities and
Currencies Trust, and certain officers are defendants (along with
several other parties) in a consolidated class action styled In re
ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-cv-6935, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
including untrue statements of material fact and omitting material
facts in the Registration Statement for one or more ProShares
ETFs, allegedly failing to adequately disclose the Funds'
investment objectives and risks.  The six Funds of the Trust named
in the complaint are ProShares Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort
Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold, ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil,
ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS Crude Oil and ProShares UltraShort Silver.
The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend Age Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, a putative class action was filed against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated and certain present and former officers
of the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County,
on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over
forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after
being placed on a performance improvement plan.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination, and seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages.  The defendants removed the complaint to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Remains Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated and NID, a test kit manufacturing
subsidiary which was closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of entities that
allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.  The
complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective
and that defendants, among other things, violated RICO and state
consumer protection laws.  The complaint alleges an unspecified
amount of damages.

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


RADIAN GROUP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suit vs. Radian Guaranty
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled Moses vs.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., voluntarily dismissed their complaint
against a subsidiary of Radian Group Inc., according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On November 29, 2010, a lawsuit Moses vs. SunTrust Banks, Inc.,
alleged to be a class action, was filed in the Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia against SunTrust Bank, its
affiliates and a number of mortgage insurers, including Radian
Guaranty.  The complaint alleges various causes of action related
to captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements with SunTrust Bank,
including that the defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act of 1974 by paying the lender's captive reinsurer
excess premiums in relation to the risk assumed by that captive.
On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the complaint
against Radian Guaranty and all of the other mortgage insurers.


RENTECH INC: Awaits Court Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with
plaintiffs of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported
class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the Company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the actions purport to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities between May 9, 2008 and December 14, 2009 and seek
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
cases were consolidated as Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc.,
et al. (In re Rentech Securities Litigation), Lead Case No. 2:09-
cv-09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and a lead plaintiff was appointed
on April 5, 2010. The Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on May 20, 2010, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the action on October 15, 2010. The Company announced on
March 23, 2011, that it has reached an agreement to settle these
matters with a settlement fund provided by its insurance carrier
of approximately $1.8 million, subject to court approval of the
settlement.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Asserts NY Class Suit Allegations Has No Merit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewis, writing for The Star, reports that a claim in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed against Waterloo-based
BlackBerry maker, Research In Motion Ltd., asserts that RIM knew
that sales and prices on its aging line of smartphones were
falling in the U.S. even faster than it had forecasted as it moves
to a new generation of phones not expected on the market until
2012.

The complaint, filed by Holzer Holzer & Fistel LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that
key corporate officers including co-chief executive Jim Balsillie
made false or misleading statements about RIM's sales and earning
prospects between last December until late April when RIM issued a
surprise profit and sales warning.  RIM shares fell 14 per cent
the day after the warning.

RIM said the allegations in the action "are without merit."

RIM said the compliant, seeks unspecified damages, and made
similar claims against smartphone maker Palm Inc. last year before
its acquisition by Hewlett-Packard.

RIM shares, which hit a 12-month high of $69.30 on Feb. 18, were
off by 0.28 per cent midday on May 27 in Toronto at $42.58.


ROSETTA STONE: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Rosetta Stone Inc. continues to defend itself from
a class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On or about April 28, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosetta Stone Ltd. and
DOES 1 to 50.  The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and other
persons similarly situated who are or were employed as salaried
managers by the Company in its retail locations in California are
due unpaid wages and other relief for its violations of state wage
and hour laws.  Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to
include a nationwide class on January 21, 2011.  On March 16,
2011, the case was removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.  However, it
cannot predict the timing and the ultimate outcome of this matter.
Even if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful in their claims against
Rosetta Stone, it will incur legal fees and other costs in the
defense of these claims.


ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed in Virginia over alleged violations of federal
securities law, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On or about March 24, 2011, a purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between February 25, 2010 and
February 28, 2011 against the Company and certain of its present
and former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of federal
securities law in connection with various public statements and
alleged material omissions made by the Company.  The complaint
names as defendants Rosetta Stone Inc., Tom P.H. Adams, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Helman, former Chief
Financial Officer, and Matthew C. Sysak, Vice President and
Controller.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
However, it cannot predict the timing and ultimate outcome of this
case.  Even if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful in their claims
against Rosetta Stone, the Company will incur legal fees and other
costs in the defense of these claims.


ROVI CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Burke" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit
filed by John Burke against Rovi Corporation's subsidiary remains
pending, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On August 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned John Burke v. TV Guide Magazine Group, Inc.,
Open Gate Capital, Rovi Corp., Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc., claiming that the Company's former subsidiary, TV Guide
Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated
consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double
issues toward the number of issues in a subscription.  On
September 10, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint
along with a petition to remove the case to federal court.  On
December 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and
plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal.

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


ROVI CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sonic Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rovi Corporation remains a defendant in lawsuits over its
acquisition of Sonic Solutions, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 3, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Vassil Vassilev v. Sonic Solutions, et al. was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Marin by an individual purporting
to be a shareholder of Sonic Solutions against Sonic Solutions,
the members of its board of directors, the Company and Sparta
Acquisition Sub, arising out of the proposed transaction between
Company and Sonic.  On January 10, 14 and 18, 2011, three
substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants, entitled Matthew
Barnes v. Habinger [sic] et al., Mark Chropufka v. Sonic
Solutions, et al. and Diana Willis v. Sonic Solutions, et al.,
respectively.  The Lawsuits allege that the members of Sonic's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty by, inter alia, failing to maximize shareholder value and
by approving the merger transaction via an unfair process.  The
Lawsuits allege that the Company and Sparta Acquisition Sub aided
and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  In January 2011, the
actions were consolidated and an amended consolidated complaint
was filed adding allegations of omissions in the Schedule 14D-9
Recommendation Statement filed by Sonic on January 14, 2011, and
seeking to enjoin the acquisition of Sonic by the Company, to
rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated, to impose
a constructive trust, and monetary damages, fees and costs in an
unspecified amount.

On January 25, 2011, another substantially similar putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants, entitled Joann Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et al.  On
January 28, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action reached
an agreement in principle to settle.  The proposed settlement,
which is subject to court approval following notice to the class
and a hearing, disposes of all causes of action asserted in the
consolidated action and in Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et. al. on
behalf of all class members who do not elect to opt out of the
settlement.  Class members who elect to opt out, if any, may
continue to pursue causes of action against the defendants.

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


ROVI CORP: Gets Final Okay to Settle Shareholder Suits vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted final approval of the settlement in lawsuits
over Sonic Solutions' acquisition of DivX Inc., according to Rovi
Corporation's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In connection with Sonic Solutions' acquisition of DivX Inc. prior
to the acquisition of Sonic by the Company, two sets of
shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against DivX, members
of the DivX board of directors, Sonic, Siracusa Merger
Corporation, and Siracusa Merger LLC, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty by the DivX board of directors in connection with
the merger.  The first set of lawsuits, captioned Gahlen v. DivX,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL), and Pared v.
DivX, Inc. et al. (Case No. 37-2010-00096242-CU-SL-CTL), were
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego, and were consolidated as In re DivX, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation (Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL).  The second set
of lawsuits, captioned Chropufka v. DivX, Inc. et al. (C.A. No.
5643-CC), and Willis v. DivX, Inc. et al. (C.A. No. 5647-CC), were
filed in Delaware Chancery Court, and were consolidated as In re
DivX, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No. 5463-
CC).  The lawsuits, brought by individual DivX stockholders
purportedly on behalf of a class of DivX stockholders, sought,
among other things, to enjoin defendants from completing the
merger pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement.  The parties
executed a Stipulation of Settlement on December 29, 2010.  On
April 22, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in EEOC Suit vs. Sterling
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit commenced by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission against Sterling Jewelers
Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, according to the
Company's May 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary
of Signet, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York federal court alleging that U.S. store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities.  In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter
to private arbitration where the plaintiffs sought to proceed on a
class-wide basis.  In June 2009, the arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration agreements allowed the plaintiff to proceed on a
class-wide basis and seek class certification.  Sterling
challenged the ruling and the District Court vacated the
arbitrator's decision in July 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed that
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where
the matter is currently pending, following argument on the appeal
in February 2011.

On September 23, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.  The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail
store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.  The EEOC
asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary
relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices.  Discovery is now
ongoing in the case.  Sterling denies the allegations from both
parties and intends to defend them vigorously.


SKYPE: Sued Over False Claims on "Unlimited" Time Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Skype falsely promises
"unlimited" time in subscriptions but limits use to 10,000 minutes
a month, 6 hours a day, and 50 called numbers a day, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


STERLING BANCSHARES: Plaintiff Dismisses Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action lawsuit brought against
Sterling Bancshares Inc. in connection with its proposed merger
with Comerica Incorporated was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on March 2, 2011, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

The lawsuit was filed in the 11th District Court of Harris County,
Texas, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and Comerica.


SOUZA CRUZ: Sao Paulo Court Denies Indemnification Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
After 16 years of litigation, a Sao Paulo court denied claims for
indemnification from Smokers' Association, in line with recent
decisions from the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice.

The judge of the 19th Civil Court of Sao Paulo denied the claims
for indemnification brought by the Association for the Defence of
the Health of Smokers (ADESF) in a class action suit filed against
cigarette manufacturers Souza Cruz and Philip Morris Brasil that,
according to the plaintiff, was evaluated at more than BRL30
billion (US$18.4 billion).  This was the first lawsuit seeking
indemnification for damages attributed to smoking cigarettes filed
in the country.  In the suit, filed in 1995, ADESF sought
indemnification for all the "smoking consumers" it alleged to
represent, based on the argument that manufacturers' advertising
had been misleading and abusive.

At one point in the process, the association managed to receive a
favorable decision from a lower court that, however, had been
rendered as an advance ruling, with defendants not being given the
opportunity to produce the evidence they had requested.  In 2008,
the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo (TJSP) recognized that defense
had been curtailed and reversed the decision, stating that
conviction without proof violates the constitutional right of full
legal defense.

The case was remanded to the 19th Civil Court of Sao Paulo for,
under due process of law, evidence to be produced, including the
expert evidence ordered by the Court of Appeals.  Due to the class
action nature of the claim, an unprecedented medical court expert
examination was carried out (analyzing epidemiological aspects of
all diseases associated with cigarette smoking), as well as an
extensive court expert analysis of advertising that, by explicit
ruling of the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo, covered the last 30
years of advertising of the two defendants in Brazil.

Summarizing, the medical expert concluded that cigarette smoking
is a multifactorial behavior and that "it is not possible to
determine in advance if a smoker will develop some type of disease
or not, but only to point out the existence of risk factors."  The
advertising expert, among other aspects, confirmed that "the use
of tobacco in all its forms dates back to ancient time, more
ancient than advertising," and that "advertising is not the only
determining factor in an individual's choice to smoke or not."

Following the statements of the parties and expressly quoting the
expert reports, the judge denied the claims for indemnification
based on the proof that "smoking cigarettes is merely a risk
factor (probability) of various diseases and is not the necessary
cause" and on the fact that "the lack of warnings about the
harmful effects of smoking cigarettes on packaging and in
advertising, when there was no legal requirement for such
warnings, creates no liability for the defendants."

Citing ample jurisprudence, including from the Superior Court of
Justice (STJ), the lower court judge emphasized that "it has been
a well known fact for decades that cigarettes are harmful to the
health of smokers" and that, "even though smoking cigarettes
causes health risks, there is no prohibition against their
manufacture and sale.  On the contrary, commerce in cigarettes is
a legal activity, permitted in our legal order."  Further, the
ruling expressly recognized the legality of the manufacturers'
advertising and that "cigarettes are a product that are inherently
dangerous and not a defective product."

All class and individual actions of this type that have been
judged conclusively by Brazilian Courts ended without the intended
liability of the manufacturers.  From a Brazilian legal
perspective, the object of this class action is identical to the
hundreds of individual actions that have already been definitively
rejected by more than 15 state courts and by the Superior Court of
Justice itself.  All final rulings handed down by Brazilian courts
have denied claims for indemnification from smokers, ex-smokers or
their family members, totaling more than 355 cases closed of over
620 cases that have been filed in Brazil since 1995.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Defends Two Suits Over Financial Crisis in Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. continues to defend itself from two class
action lawsuits currently pending in Georgia, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In the wake of the ongoing financial credit crisis that began in
2007, Synovus, like many other financial institutions, has become
the target of numerous legal actions and other proceedings
asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses
resulting from this crisis.  These actions include claims and
counterclaims asserted by individual borrowers related to their
loans and allegations of violations of state and federal laws and
regulations relating to banking practices, including several
purported putative class action matters.  Synovus Bank recently
was named as a defendant in a purported putative class action
relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft fees to
customers.  The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al.
was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on
July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money
had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs
as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in
connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards
used to access customer accounts.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company were named as defendants in a second putative class
action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges
overdraft fees to customers.  The second case Childs et al. v.
Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for
alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges allegedly resulting from
the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts.
These cases, and certain of the other litigation and regulatory
matters to which Synovus is subject, assert claims for substantial
or indeterminate damages.

Synovus says it intends to vigorously pursue all available
defenses to these claims.  There are significant uncertainties
involved in any potential class action.  Although the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits cannot be ascertained at this time,
based upon information that presently is available to it, Synovus'
management is unable to predict the outcome of these cases and
cannot determine the probability of an adverse result or
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  In
addition, management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses with respect to these claims.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Class Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against Synovus Financial Corp. alleging
misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts that
artificially inflated Synovus' stock price remain pending,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action") and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws.  Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition.  Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-3069), against certain current and/or former directors
and executive officers of Synovus.  The Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated
their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as
alleged in the Securities Class Action.  The plaintiff is seeking
to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or
injunctive relief.

On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class
Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery
purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF,
holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and
fact."

On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia, (the "State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and
executive officers of Synovus.  The State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as
alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.  The
plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.  On June 17, 2010, the
Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit.

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

Synovus says that it and the individual named defendants
collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the
Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
allegations.  There are significant uncertainties involved in any
potential class action and derivative litigation.  Although the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be ascertained at this
time, based upon information that presently is available to it,
Synovus' management is unable to predict the outcome of the
Securities Class Action or the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits and
cannot determine the probability of an adverse result or
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  In
addition, management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses with respect to these claims.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Columbus Bank and Trust
Company, continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit
against it in California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 24, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against CompuCredit Corporation and the Company's subsidiary,
Columbus Bank and Trust Company, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Greenwood v.
CompuCredit, et. al., Case No. 4:08-cv-04878 (CW), alleging that
certain solicitations used in connection with the credit card
programs offered pursuant to the Affinity Agreement violated the
Credit Repair Organization Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1679 ("CROA"),
and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200.  CB&T intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations.  On January 22, 2009, the court in the Superior
Court Litigation ruled that CompuCredit must pay the reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred by CB&T in connection with the Greenwood
case pursuant to the indemnification provision of the Affinity
Agreement.  Any losses that CB&T incurs in connection with
Greenwood are also expected to be subject to the indemnification
provisions of the Affinity Agreement.  Based on current knowledge
and advice of counsel, management does not believe that the
eventual outcome of this case will have a material adverse effect
on Synovus' consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


TELENAV INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Is Aug. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be held on August 12, 2011, to consider TeleNav,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported stockholder class action
filed by David Smith, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was
filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of its underwriters for its May 13, 2010 initial public
offering, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On November 1, 2010, David Smith and his
attorneys filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and
lead counsel, which the Company did not oppose.

On February 3, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and selection of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.  On March 21, 2011, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint.  The amended complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock pursuant to its May 13, 2010 initial public
offering.  The amended complaint alleges that the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters for
the initial public offering violated the Securities Act by issuing
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiff
alleges contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose in its May 13, 2010 Registration Statement and
Prospectus that the Company would soon be renegotiating its
current contract with Sprint, the Company's largest customer,
which would result in its revenue being reduced.  The amended
complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations and believes that
its defenses to this action have merit.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against this action and filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on May 4, 2011, which will
be heard by the Court on August 12, 2011.  Due to the preliminary
status of the lawsuit and uncertainties related to litigation, the
Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable
or unfavorable outcome.  The Company cannot currently estimate a
range of any possible losses its may experience in connection with
this case.  Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this amended complaint on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


TEXAS: Judge Allows Foster Care Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge said she will allow a
lawsuit challenging Texas' foster care system to proceed as a
class action.

U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack said during a hearing
Thursday that she will grant class certification for the suit
initiated by the advocacy group Children's Rights.

The suit contends that the Texas system is unconstitutional and
should be reformed.  It was filed in March on behalf of nine
children between the ages of nine and 16.

A spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the state
will determine its next course of action when the judge issues a
written order.

The suit is the 12th of its kind initiated by the New York-based
advocacy group seeking to reform child welfare systems
administered by state or municipal governments.


TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suits Over Merger With Talon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tollgrade Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself from
lawsuits over its merger with Talon Holdings, Inc., according to
the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On February 22, 2011, the Company announced that its had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 21, 2011, with
Talon Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), and Talon Merger Sub Inc., a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent.
Parent is owned by investment funds managed by Golden Gate Private
Equity, Inc.  Subsequent to the merger announcement, four class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors, and
in some cases, Parent, Merger Sub and Golden Gate Capital in
connection with the proposed Merger.

   * Steven Tencza vs. Edward H. Kennedy, et al. (Case No.
     GD-11-003755 (Derivative) and Case No. GD-11-006284 (Class
     Action)) and Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust vs. Edward H.
     Kennedy, et al. (Case No. GD-11-003908 (Derivative) and Case
     No. GD-11-006285 (Class Action)), which were filed on
     February 24, 2011 and on March 1, 2011, respectively, in the
     Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;

   * Equity Benefit Partners vs. Edward H. Kennedy, et al. (Case
     No. 11-10364), filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler
     County, Pennsylvania on March 18, 2011; and

   * Margaret W. Crouthamel vs. Edward H. Kennedy, et al., filed
     in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
     Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:11-cv-00403-RCM) on March 28, 2011.

On April 1, 2011, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
describing the proposed merger.  On April 5, 2011, the Tencza and
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust cases were consolidated at In re
Tollgrade Communications, Inc. Derivative and Class Action
Litigation, Consolidated Case No. GD-11-003755.  On April 19,
2011, the Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust case was severed and
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff with the court's approval.
On April 27, 2011, the Company and the plaintiffs in Tencza and
Equity Benefit Partners reached an agreement in principle
providing for the settlement and dismissal of their lawsuits.
Pursuant to that agreement, the Company agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed merger and filed a
supplement to the Company's definitive proxy statement on
April 27, 2011.

Although a final settlement amount has yet to be reached, the
Company has accrued $0.4 million as its estimate of what it
believes the anticipated outcome may be.


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
TomoTherapy Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action complaint filed in connection with its proposed
merger with Accuray Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On or about March 11, 2011, an alleged Tomo shareholder, Andrew M.
Storch, filed a purported class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated Tomo shareholders in the
Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin, captioned Storch v.
TomoTherapy Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11 CV 1183.  The
lawsuit relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
March 6, 2011, among Tomo, Accuray Incorporated, a Delaware
corporation (Accuray), and Jaguar Acquisition, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation (Merger Sub), and names as defendants Tomo and certain
directors and officers of Tomo.  Thereafter, four more alleged
Tomo shareholders filed complaints in the same court on behalf of
the same purported class and against the same defendants, under
the following captions: Janz v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 11 CV 1184 (filed on March 11, 2011); Haselwander v.
TomoTherapy Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11 CV 1189 (filed on
March 14, 2011); Reiter v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 11 CV 1203 (filed on March 15, 2011); and Shuen v. TomoTherapy
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11 CV 1208 (filed on March 15,
2011). The Reiter and the Shuen complaints also named Accuray and
Merger Sub as defendants.

On April 4, 2011, all five actions were consolidated under the
caption In re TomoTherapy Incorporated Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 11 CV 1183.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss
Accuray as a defendant from the consolidated action.  On April 18,
2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which alleges,
among other things, that Tomo's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the negotiation, consideration and
approval of the merger agreement between Tomo and Accuray by,
among other things, conducting a flawed sales process and agreeing
to sell Tomo for inadequate consideration and on otherwise
inappropriate terms.  The complaint also alleges that the
defendants filed with the SEC a Form S-4 Registration Statement
that misstates or omits material information regarding the
proposed transaction.  The complaint further alleges that Tomo
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Tomo's
directors. Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint
seeks equitable relief, including an injunction of the merger, and
costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees.

The TomoTherapy defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on April 25, 2011. A hearing on the motion
to dismiss was scheduled to be held on May 12, 2011. Based on the
facts known to date, the TomoTherapy defendants consider the
claims asserted to be without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them.


UNITED BANKSHARES: Faces Class Action Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Smith, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
state financial institution is accused of using debit cards as a
means of bilking its customers out of money.

Jonathan Jones initiated a class-action lawsuit on April 14
against United Bank, and its parent company, United Bankshares
Inc. in Jackson Circuit Court.  In his complaint, Mr. Jones, a
Charleston resident alleges, United derives a portion of its
profits by unfairly and improperly structuring debit card payments
so customers will potentially incur overdraft fees.

According to the suit, Mr. Jones alleges that upon opening an
account, United customers are provided a booklet called "Rules and
Regulations Governing Account" also known as the "Account
agreement."  In the agreement, United "makes no mention of [its]
regular practice of reordering transactions from highest amount to
lowest amount and charging overdraft fees when in fact an account
has not been overdrafted."

This reordering, Mr. Jones claims, has nothing "to do with the
soundness of the banking system or operational efficiency."
Instead, it is "to maximize overdraft fees it can change."

Currently, United charges $34 per overdraft.  According to
Mr. Jones' suit, United will charge an overdraft "for a 'negative
balance' made exclusively of previously charged overdraft fees."

Though he provides no specifics, Mr. Jones alleges United did not
warn him if his account was overdrawn, was going to be overdrawn,
or if additional transactions would result in overdraft fees.  In
spite of knowing a customer has a negative balance, Mr. Jones
maintains United "encourages the customer to incur more overdraft
changes by approving -- rather then prudently declining --
subsequent debit card purchases and other electronic
transactions."

United's overdraft scheme, Mr. Jones alleges, even applies to
those whose accounts have sufficient funds to cover debits.
Despite facing little if any risk, United has charged an overdraft
fee to accounts where it has placed a "hold" on actual funds
though the account has not dropped below zero.

In the suit, Mr. Jones maintains the practice is not limited to
United.  He cited a 2008 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
study that found almost 75 percent of service charge income of all
FDIC-regulated banks came from overdraft fees.

That amount, according to the study, was in excess of $27 billion.
Mr. Jones' suit provides no specifics on how much revenue United
generated from overdraft fees.

According to United's Web site, the Company, with dual
headquarters in Charleston and Washington, D.C., holds $7.2
billion in assets in the 111 branches it has in West Virginia,
Ohio, Virginia, Maryland and Washington.

Along with certification of the suit as class-action, Mr. Jones
asks that he, and other potential class members, be awarded
unspecified damages, including disgorgement and restitution of all
overdraft fees, statutory penalties for each violation of the
state Consumer Credit and Protection Act, court costs, interest
and attorney fees.

Mr. Jones is represented by:

          David L. Grubb, Esq.
          Cameron S. McKinney, Esq.
          Kristina Tomas Whiteaker, Esq.
          THE GRUBB LAW GROUP
          1324 Virginia Street East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: 304-345-3356

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com

The case is assigned to Judge Thomas C. Evans III.

Jackson Circuit Court case number 11-C-50.


UNITED FIRE: Awaits Okay of Settlement in Suits vs. Mercer Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company is awaiting court approval of its
negotiated resolution and settlement of the class action lawsuits
relating to its proposed merger with Mercer Insurance Group,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in two lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey of Mercer County, Chancery Division, relating
to its proposed merger with Mercer Insurance Group.  Each of the
lawsuits was filed as a class action on behalf of all of Mercer
Insurance Group stockholders and alleges, among other things, that
the consideration that stockholders will receive in connection
with the merger is inadequate, that Mercer Insurance Group
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, and that the
Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty by Mercer
Insurance Group's directors.  Each of the complaints seeks various
forms of relief, including injunctive relief that would have, if
granted, prevented the merger from closing in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.

The Company says it aggressively defended these cases and while it
believes that the claims asserted against United Fire, Mercer
Insurance Group, and its directors are without merit, the Company,
along with Mercer Insurance Group, has negotiated a resolution of
the suits.  Court approval of the settlement is pending and is
expected within the second or third quarter of 2011.  The exposure
under the terms of the negotiated resolution is not a material
obligation of United Fire or Mercer Insurance Group.  In the event
that the court does not approve the negotiated resolution of the
litigation, the Company believes that the exposure faced by United
Fire and Mercer Insurance Group does not represent a material
obligation.


UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits relating to Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits,
including actions seeking certification from the court to proceed
as a class action suit and actions filed by individual
policyholders, relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  As of
March 31, 2011, there were approximately 76 individual
policyholder cases pending and four class action cases pending.
These cases have been filed in Louisiana state courts and federal
district courts and involve, among other claims, disputes as to
the amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases, as well as
the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial
property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss
of use and business interruption.  Certain of these cases also
claim a breach of duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana
insurance claims-handling laws or regulations and involve claims
for punitive or exemplary damages.  Other cases claim that under
Louisiana's so-called "Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay
the total insured value of a home that is totally destroyed if any
portion of such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the
principal cause of the loss was an excluded peril.  Other cases
challenge the scope or enforceability of the water damage
exclusion in the policies.

Several actions pending against various insurers, including the
Company, were consolidated for purposes of pre-trial discovery and
motion practice under the caption In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182 in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.  In August
2009, the federal trial court ruled in that case that
certification of policyholder claims as a class would be
inappropriate.  The Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the denial of class certification.  Federal court rulings
in that case are not binding on state courts, which do not have to
follow the federal court ruling on class certification.

Following an April 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court decision finding
that flood damage was clearly excluded from coverage, both state
and federal courts have been reviewing pending lawsuits seeking
class certification and other pending lawsuits in order to
expedite pre-trial discovery and to move the cases towards trial.
In the first three months of 2011, the Company concluded 14 of the
approximately 90 lawsuits that were pending at December 31, 2010.
Five new lawsuits were filed in 2010 against the Company, alleging
entitlement to additional insurance recovery as a result of
Katrina-related damage.  The Company has asserted that these suits
were not timely filed and should be dismissed, but the Louisiana
Supreme Court issued an opinion on March 15, 2011, that appears to
allow for filing of suit even at this late date by personal lines
policyholders.

In July 2008, Lafayette Insurance Company participated in a
hearing in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, after which the court
entered an order certifying a class defined as all Lafayette
Insurance Company personal lines policyholders within an eight
parish area in and around New Orleans who sustained wind damage as
a result of Hurricane Katrina and whose claims were at least
partially denied or allegedly misadjusted.  The Company appealed
this order, and in a decision dated, November 30, 2010, the
Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that certification of the class was
improper and remanded the matter to the trial court for a
determination of the merits of the claims of individually
identified policyholders.  In light of this decision, the Company
believes it unlikely that class certification will be upheld in
any of the other suits seeking class relief.  As the claims of
potential class members will likely not be addressed in class
action litigation, the only recourse for policyholders
dissatisfied with their insurance claim adjustment will be through
litigation pursued by specifically named persons.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend the cases
related to losses incurred as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.
The Company has have established its loss and loss settlement
expense reserves on the assumption that the application of the
Valued Policy Law will not result in the Company's having to pay
damages for perils not otherwise covered.  The Company believes
that, in the aggregate, these reserves are adequate.  The
Company's evaluation of these claims and the adequacy of recorded
reserves may change if the Company encounters adverse developments
in the further defense of these claims.  In the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company incurred $3.8
million and $5.4 million in adverse development from its previous
estimates for Hurricane Katrina claims litigation.


URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation's subsidiary, Washington Group International,
Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated lawsuit
relating to Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2011.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company, a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the
Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005,
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created
by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases,
including the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.  The
plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to have
incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is that the
work it performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the
levee and floodwall and caused and/or contributed to breaches and
flooding.  The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and
demand attorneys' fees and costs.  WGI Ohio did not design,
construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls
that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed
the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the
federal government and has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on
a motion for summary judgment on the basis that government
contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009, to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's
dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further litigation.

WGI Ohio says it intends to continue to defend these matters
vigorously; however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it
will be successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss
and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Hearing Likely Jan. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion for summary judgment in a class action
lawsuit against Biovail Corporation could be set for January 12,
2012, according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 28, 2010, Biovail Corporation completed the
acquisition of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International through a
wholly-owned subsidiary, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 20, 2010, with Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Biovail
Corporation. In connection with the Merger, Biovail Corporation
was renamed "Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc."

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc,
and SmithKline Beecham Inc. seeking damages and alleging that
Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for
generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R). The direct purchaser plaintiff
in the Massachusetts federal court lawsuit voluntarily dismissed
its complaint on May 27, 2008, and shortly thereafter re-filed a
virtually identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In late May and early June 2008,
additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also
filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. These complaints
have now been consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser
and a lead indirect purchaser action.

On September 10, 2008, Biovail and GSK filed motions to dismiss
both the direct and indirect purchaser actions. Those motions were
heard on February 26, 2009. In the direct purchaser case, on
March 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motions, dismissing the Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claim
that had been made by the direct purchasers against Biovail.
Biovail and GSK answered the remaining claims in the direct
purchaser case on April 16, 2009. On March 26, 2009, before an
order issued on the motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The pending motions were therefore denied as
moot, and new motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims were filed on April 30, 2009. On July 30, 2009,
the Court dismissed all indirect purchaser claims except the
antitrust claims (limited as to Biovail's concerted actions) in
California, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the consumer
protection claims of California and Florida.

On May 13, 2010, Aetna, Inc. filed a motion to intervene as an
indirect purchaser. The Court denied Aetna's motion to intervene
on July 21, 2010. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs
and Aetna Health of California Inc. filed a motion to substitute
Aetna Health of California Inc. as the representative of the
pending California claims on August 13, 2010. The Court granted
this motion on September 22, 2010.

Additionally, on September 14, 2010, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to
add claims under Illinois's Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly
Act. The Company and GSK opposed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion. On December 21, 2010, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motion for leave to amend, permitting
indirect purchasers leave to amend their complaint to assert
claims under New York's Donnelly Act but not under Illinois's
Antitrust Act.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification. The Company
and GSK opposed the motions. A hearing on direct purchaser
plaintiffs' class certification motion was heard by the Court on
April 5, 2011. A hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion took place on April 29, 2011. A decision is
pending.

The deadline for fact discovery is currently June 30, 2011, with
an October 7, 2011 deadline for expert discovery. A summary
judgment hearing will likely be set on or about January 12, 2012.

The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and
that the Company's challenged actions complied with all applicable
laws and regulations, including federal and state antitrust laws,
FDA regulations, U.S. patent law and the Hatch Waxman Act.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suits in Texas and Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2006, Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., and two other
hospital systems operating in San Antonio, Texas, had a putative
class action lawsuit brought against them alleging that the
Company and the other defendants had conspired with one another
and with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress
the compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
competing hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.  On
the same day that this litigation was brought against the Company
and two other hospital systems in San Antonio, substantially
similar class action litigation was brought against multiple
hospitals or hospital systems in three other cities (Chicago,
Illinois; Albany, New York; and Memphis, Tennessee), with a fifth
suit instituted against hospitals or hospital systems in Detroit,
Michigan, later in 2006, one of which hospital systems was The
Detroit Medical Center, which the Company acquired in January 1,
2011.

The Company says a negative outcome in the San Antonio and/or the
Detroit actions could materially affect its business, financial
condition or results of operations.

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


VOLCOM INC: PPR Merger Prompts Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volcom Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in connection with
the proposed acquisition of its shares by a subsidiary of PPR
S.A., according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, the Company, along with PPR, a French-based luxury
goods group, jointly announced that they have signed a definitive
merger agreement whereby a new wholly owned subsidiary of PPR will
make a cash tender offer to acquire 100% of the shares of the
Company for a price of $24.50 share, for a total equity value of
$607.5 million and an enterprise value of $516.1 million.
Following consummation of the Offer, Purchaser will be merged with
and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PPR. The transaction is expected to be completed
during the third quarter of 2011.

On May 4, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Greenwood v. Volcom, Inc., et al., was filed in the Orange County
Superior Court.  The complaint names as defendants the members of
the Company's board of directors, as well as the Company, PPR and
Purchaser.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the Offer and Merger, and further claims that the
Company, PPR and Purchaser aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint alleges that the Offer
and Merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process,
and that defendants agreed to the transactions to benefit
themselves personally.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the Offer and Merger, imposition of a
constructive trust, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.  The Company believes the
plaintiff's allegations lack merit, and will contest them
vigorously.


WARNER MUSIC GROUP: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended class action complaint concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads brought against Warner Music
Group Corp. is still pending, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to whether the practices of industry participants concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, New York State General Business Law SectionSection
340 et seq., New York Executive Law Section63(12), and related
statutes.  On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice served the Company with a request for
information in the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to
whether its activities relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Both
investigations have now been closed.

Subsequent to the announcement of the governmental investigations,
more than thirty putative class action lawsuits concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads were filed and were later
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Southern District of
New York.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13,
2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the
release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their
pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.  All defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  On
October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the
case as to all defendants, including the Company.  On November 20,
2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the
District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit.  Oral
argument took place before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on
September 21, 2009.  On January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit
vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  On January 27, 2010, all defendants,
including the Company, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with
the Second Circuit. On March 26, 2010, the Second Circuit denied
the petition for rehearing en banc.  On August 20, 2010, all
defendants including the Company, filed a petition for Certiorari
before the Supreme Court.  The petition was rejected on
January 10, 2011.  The case is now with the trial court.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but are unable to predict the outcome of these suits.  Any
litigation it may become involved in as a result of the inquiries
of the Attorney General of the State of New York and the
Department of Justice, regardless of the merits of the claim,
could be costly and divert the time and resources of management.


WEBMD HEALTH: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kaye" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. obtained a final court order dismissing the
amended class action complaint brought against its subsidiaries by
Dr. Roger Kaye, according to its May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye (and
Roger H. Kaye MD PC) individually, and as an alleged class action
-- Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC v. WebMD, LLC, et al. --
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under a similar
Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the Company.  The lawsuit
claims that faxes allegedly sent during the period from August 1,
2006 to April 21, 2010 by subsidiaries of the Company and by The
Little Blue Book business that the Company sold in September 2009
were sent in violation of the TCPA and the Connecticut statute.
With respect to the TCPA claims, the lawsuit seeks statutory
damages in excess of $5,000 for each of two classes of plaintiffs,
and a trebling of those damages.  With respect to the claims under
the Connecticut statute, under which trebling is unavailable, the
lawsuit additionally seeks an undetermined amount of damages.

In April 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same claims as were asserted in the original
complaint.  The Company's subsidiaries have filed their answer as
well as a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice on the
grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and also
filed a motion to stay discovery, which was granted pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.  On July 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss and ordered that class-related
discovery should proceed, while continuing a stay of full merits
discovery.  The parties have agreed on terms to settle the matter
and, on May 1, 2011, the Court entered a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing the lawsuit.  The Company believes that
any costs related to this litigation are covered by insurance,
subject to the Company's deductible.


WEBMD HEALTH: Dismissed From "Rodimer" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. entered into an agreement dismissing the
Company as party to a consolidated class action complaint filed in
California, according to its May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 17, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint in
the lawsuit -- Daniel Rodimer, et. al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., et. al. -- which
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Plaintiffs are seeking to have the
case certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges that
Apple, Inc. and several other defendants, including one or more
subsidiaries of the Company, have violated several Federal and
California statues and are also liable under various common law
claims in connection with the distribution of software
applications for mobile devices through Apple's iTunes store.  The
Federal Statutes that are alleged to have been violated are the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030; and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as damages in
unspecified amounts.  On April 20, 2011, Plaintiffs and the
Company signed an agreement tolling the statutes of limitations
applicable to Plaintiffs' alleged claims against the Company.  On
April 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a first consolidated class action
complaint that did not name the Company as a party.  Pursuant to
the terms of the tolling agreement, Plaintiffs dismissed the
Company from the case without prejudice, with each party bearing
its own costs, and with the reservation of the right to name the
Company as party at a subsequent time, subject to any substantive
defenses available to the Company.  The tolling agreement may be
terminated by either party upon 30 days' written notice.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action
lawsuit, shareholders complain that Wells Fargo directors exposed
the company to billions of dollars in liability by aggressive and
illegal foreclosures.

A copy of the Complaint in Gorberg v. Stumpf, et al., Case No. 11-
cv-02577 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/31/WellsFargo.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0800
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  jbarrack@barrack.com


WESTINGHOUSE: Discovery in California Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action complaint filed against
Westinghouse Solar Inc. over alleged violations of federal
securities laws, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On May 18, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named in a class action complaint in the United States District
Court Northern District of California San Jose Division alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges
various omissions and misrepresentations during the period of
December 26, 2007 to March 13, 2008 regarding, among other things,
the Company's backlog reporting and bank line of credit.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint on February 12, 2010, for
failure to state a claim for relief.  On May 20, 2010, the
District Court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims
relating to statements made prior to the class period, including
statements relating to its backlog, its Andalay product, and its
supply agreement with Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.  Due to the
stage of the case, the Company has not had the opportunity to
present any defenses to the only two remaining allegations, which
relate to its December 26, 2007 disclosure of the Comerica line of
credit and its January 2, 2008 announcement of the Suntech license
agreement.  On October 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved the court to
certify themselves as a class, a procedure required in order for
plaintiffs to move forward with their case as a class action.  On
March 10, 2011, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  Discovery is also currently ongoing with a
court imposed cut-off date of August 1, 2011.  The Company
believes that the claims in this case are entirely without merit.
However, this matter is in the early stages and the Company cannot
reasonably estimate an amount of potential loss, if any, at this
time.


WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Court Okay of Gender Discrimination Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company has entered into a
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by female officers and
is awaiting court approval of the deal, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2008, the Company settled an action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York commenced
against the Company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide
class of present and former female officer and officer equivalent
employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them on
the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although the Court had denied
plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to grant
nationwide discovery, it certified a class of approximately 200
female officers and officer equivalent employees based in the
Company's offices in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. The
settlement agreement provides for injunctive relief and a monetary
payment, including the amount of attorney fees plaintiffs' counsel
are entitled to receive, which was not material to the Company. In
December 2006, a former female employee, whose motion to intervene
in the class action was denied, filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
with almost identical allegations as those contained in the suit
that was settled in 2008, except seeking a class period of 1998 to
the time of trial (the class period in the settled suit was 1998
to the end of 2001). The Company's motion to dismiss this suit was
denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to
immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to
dismiss. The suit was amended to include one additional plaintiff
and another filed an arbitration demand that includes a class
allegation.

In January 2011, the Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs
on a monetary settlement to settle all class claims and the claims
of the individual named plaintiffs as well as the plaintiff that
filed an arbitration demand. The amount of this settlement is not
material. However, before this matter can be settled in its
entirety, the Court must approve all terms of the settlement.


WILLIS GROUP: Still Defends Stanford-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company is still defending
itself against class action complaints related to its role as
insurance broker of Stanford Financial Group, the Company
disclosed in its May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 2, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-
CV-01274-N, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others, relating to
the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis of
Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of
insurance.  The complaint generally alleged that the defendants
actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by
providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that
they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or
prospective Stanford client investors.  The complaint alleged that
these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the
insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford,
contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in
this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly
fraudulent certificates of deposit.  The putative class consisted
of Stanford investors in Mexico and the complaint asserted various
claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought actual
damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs.  On
August 12, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which,
notwithstanding the addition of certain factual allegations and
Texas common law claims, largely mirrored the original and sought
the same relief.

On July 17, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was
filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis of Colorado, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the Troice
complaint.  Based on substantially the same allegations as the
Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors, the Ranni complaint
asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as various claims under
Florida statutory and common law, and seeks damages in an amount
to be determined at trial and costs.

On or about July 24, 2009, a motion was filed by certain
individuals -- Movants -- with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and coordinate in the
Northern District of Texas nine separate putative class actions --
including the Troice and Ranni actions, as well as other actions
against various Stanford-related entities and individuals and the
Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda -- relating to Stanford and
its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

On August 6, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others,
also in the Northern District of Texas, relating to the same
alleged course of conduct as the Troice complaint.  Based on
substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but on
behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan investors, the Canabal
complaint asserted various claims under Texas statutory and common
law and sought actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On or about August 10, 2009, the Movants filed with the JPML a
Notice of Related Action that referred the Canabal action to the
JPML.  On October 6, 2009, the JPML ruled on the transfer motion,
transferring seven of the subject actions (including the Troice
and Ranni actions) - i.e., the original nine actions minus two
that had since been dismissed - for consolidation or coordination
in the Northern District of Texas.  On October 27, 2009, the
parties to the Canabal action stipulated to the designation of
that action as a related case and properly part of the new
Stanford MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Texas.

On September 14, 2009, a complaint, captioned Rupert, et al. v.
Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on behalf of 97
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in
Texas state court (Bexar County).  Based on substantially the
same allegations as the Troice complaint, the Rupert complaint
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as
various Texas statutory and common law claims, and seeks
rescission, damages, special damages and consequential damages of
$79.1 million, treble damages of $237.4 million under the Texas
Insurance Code, attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed the Rupert action to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency
of this additional 'tag-along' action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  In
November 2009, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order or CTO
for the transfer of the Rupert action to the Northern District of
Texas.  On December 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
vacate, or alternatively stay, the CTO, to which Willis of
Colorado, Inc. responded on January 4, 2010.  On April 1, 2010,
the JPML denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the CTO and
issued a final transfer order for the transfer of the Rupert
action to the Northern District of Texas.

On December 18, 2009, the parties to the Troice and Canabal
actions stipulated to the consolidation of those actions and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs therein, collectively, filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely mirrors the
Troice and Canabal predecessor complaints, but seeks relief on
behalf of a worldwide class of Stanford investors.  Also on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Canabal action filed a
Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Canabal action without
prejudice.  On February 25, 2010, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated Troice/Canabal action.  Those motions are currently
pending.  On May 24, 2010, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
Troice/Canabal action filed a motion for leave to file a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other things, adds
several Texas statutory claims.  That motion is also currently
pending.

On September 16, 2010, a complaint, captioned Casanova, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-01862-O, was
filed on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group
Holdings, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same
Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of
Texas.  Although this is not a class action, the Casanova
complaint is based on substantially the same allegations as the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated
Troice/Canabal action.  The Casanova complaint asserts various
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual
damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On March 29, 2011, the court granted the consolidated
Troice/Canabal plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, which they filed on April 1, 2011.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., removed the Rishmague action to the Northern
District of Texas and notified the JPML of the pendency of this
additional 'tag-along' action.

On April 13, 2011, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order
for the transfer of the Rishmague action to the Northern District
of Texas.

The defendants have not yet responded to the Ranni, Rupert,
Casanova or Rishmague complaints. On May 2, 2011, the defendants
moved to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated Troice/Canabal action.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by other
investors in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford and its
affiliates. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to
defend itself vigorously against these actions. The outcomes of
these actions, however, including any losses or other payments
that may occur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.


YAHOO INC: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a global settlement in the
securities class action lawsuits against Overture Services Inc.
remain pending, according to Yahoo! Inc.'s May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities class
action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain underwriters
involved in initial public offering of Yahoo! Inc.'s subsidiary,
Overture Services Inc., Overture, and certain of Overture's former
officers and directors.  The court consolidated the cases against
Overture.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and
improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified
damages.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
numerous public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were
consolidated.  On October 5, 2009, the court granted class
certification and granted final approval of a stipulated global
settlement and plan of allocation.  On October 6, 2010, various
individuals objecting to the settlement filed opening appeal
briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and
in early February 2011, Yahoo! and other appellees filed reply
briefs in support of the settlement.

Based on current knowledge, the Company does not believe that the
aggregate amount of liability that is reasonably possible with
respect to the foregoing legal proceedings or claims would have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.  In the event of a determination
adverse to Yahoo!, its subsidiaries, directors, or officers in
these matters, however, the Company may incur substantial monetary
liability, and be required to change its business practices.
Either of these could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.  The Company may also incur substantial expenses in
defending against these claims.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Still Subject to Exposure-Related Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries have been named
defendants in some asbestos-related litigation filed in certain
U.S. states.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2011.

Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified growth company that
designs, manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls,
medical and scientific imaging products and software, industrial
technology products and radio frequency products and services.
The Company is headquartered in Sarasota, Fla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Still Facing Burik Lawsuit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC subsidiary continues to face
an asbestos lawsuit styled Burik, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille,
Inc. et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000429, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City.

In the case filed on June 9, 2010, plaintiff is suing individually
and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased smoker.
Plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to the decedent by
exposure to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain
asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company
defendants, including Liggett.

The defendants, including Liggett, filed a motion to dismiss in
July 2010.  Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss on July 29, 2010.  The motion is pending.

Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States.
New Valley is engaged in the real estate business and is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  The Company is headquartered in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Subject to Kraska's Action in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC subsidiary is a defendant in
a case involving asbestos styled Kraska, et al. v. John Crane-
Houdaille, Inc. et al., Case No. 24X08000209, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City.

In the case filed on Aug. 2, 2010, plaintiff is suing individually
and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased smoker.

Plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to decedent by exposure
to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,
including Liggett.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
Oct. 8, 2010.  The motion is pending.

Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States.
New Valley is engaged in the real estate business and is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  The Company is headquartered in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Facing Love Injury Action in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC subsidiary continues to face
an asbestos lawsuit styled Love, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille,
Inc. et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000120, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City.

In the case filed on June 1, 2010, plaintiff and his wife seek
damages allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes,
with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and
certain tobacco company defendants, including Liggett.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in July 2010.  Plaintiffs
filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on July 29,
2010.  The motion is pending.

Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States.
New Valley is engaged in the real estate business and is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  The Company is headquartered in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Subject to Schoppert Claim in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC subsidiary is still a
defendant in an asbestos case styled Schoppert, et al., v. John
Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-07-000300, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City.

In the case filed on Feb. 19, 2010, plaintiffs are husband and
wife who seek damages allegedly caused to Plaintiff Leon D.
Schoppert by exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoke, with claims
against certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain
tobacco company defendants, including Liggett.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
Aug. 18, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a response to Liggett's Motion to
Dismiss on Aug. 20, 2010.  The motion is pending.

Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States.
New Valley is engaged in the real estate business and is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  The Company is headquartered in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Vector Group Ltd. Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says a claim involving asbestos styled Parsons,
et al. v. A C & S Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388, Circuit Court,
W.Va., Ohio County, is still stayed.

In the case filed on Feb. 9, 1998, the personal injury class
action is brought on behalf of plaintiff's decedent and all West
Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos
fibers.

The complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for all potential members of the class.  The case
is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy petitions
filed by three defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States.
New Valley is engaged in the real estate business and is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.  The Company is headquartered in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like hundreds of other industrial companies, FMC Corporation has
been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2011.

Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing
components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or
sold by discontinued operations.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products.
The Company is headquartered in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 530 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 530 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits
pending against MeadWestvaco Corporation as of March 31, 2011,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2011.

There were about 555 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against the
Company as of Dec. 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, April 1,
2011)

At March 31, 2011, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$33 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

MeadWestvaco Corporation's segments are (i) Packaging Resources,
(ii) Consumer Solutions, (iii) Consumer & Office Products, (iv)
Specialty Chemicals, and (v) Community Development and Land
Management.  The Company is headquartered in Richmond, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Unit Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's AK Steel Corporation subsidiary (or
its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises
of a current or former AK Steel facility.

About 40% of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure
at a facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984.  The
majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a
defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is a fully-integrated producer of
flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation.  The Company is headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Records 2,250 MARDOC Actions Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. says that, of the MARDOC cases
pending in Federal court in Pennsylvania (claims alleging injury
or illness from exposure to asbestos), about 2,250 of about 4,000
cases that had been administratively dismissed without prejudice
(i.e., with the right to re-file) have now been finally dismissed
(i.e., no right to re-file).

Of the 32 MARDOC cases that had been reinstated and were still
pending, 20 additional cases have been dismissed without any
settlement payments, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. markets and distributes (1)
bananas and other fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other
brand names in nearly 70 countries and (2) packaged salads sold
under the Fresh Express(R) and other brand names primarily in the
United States.  The Company is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Corp. Has $2MM ARO at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation recorded asset retirement obligations
of about US$2 million at March 31, 2011, compared with US$2.1
million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations.
The asset retirement obligations relate primarily to the removal
of asbestos and contaminated soil during development or
redevelopment of the properties as well as the estimated equipment
removal costs upon termination of a certain lease under which the
Company is the lessee.

CoreSite Realty Corporation, through its controlling interest in
CoreSite, L.P., is engaged in the business of owning, acquiring,
constructing and managing technology-related real estate.  The
Company is headquartered in Denver, Colo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries have been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.  The Company said it believes that the minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.

The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational
manufacturing and service company that designs, manufactures, and
overhauls precision components and systems and provides highly
engineered products and services.  Operations are conducted
through 57 manufacturing facilities and 61 metal treatment service
facilities.  The Company is headquartered in Parsippany, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Posts $1.8MM for Leslie Indemnity
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, as of April 3, 2011, it said
it believed that the aggregate amount of asbestos-related
indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining on subsidiary Leslie
Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of insurance was about
US$1.8 million.

Leslie had recorded the maximum amount of available primary layer
insurance as of September 2008.  As a result, asbestos related
indemnity costs from that point forward were no longer partially
offset by a corresponding insurance recovery.

However, defense costs, which were recognized as incurred,
continued to be and, but for the Bankruptcy Filing, would have
continued to be partially offset by a 36% contribution from
Leslie's remaining primary layer insurance carrier until such time
as the aggregate amount of indemnity claims paid out (on a cash
basis) by the remaining primary layer insurance carrier exceeded
policy limits.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial,
aerospace and energy markets.  With more than 7,000 customers in
over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product
portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands.  The Company is
headquartered in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says small numbers of asbestos-related
claims have been filed against two of its subsidiaries: Spence and
Hoke.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984 and Hoke in 1998.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial,
aerospace and energy markets.  With more than 7,000 customers in
over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product
portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands.  The Company is
headquartered in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its Utilities continue to face
lawsuits brought in New York State and federal courts, wherein a
large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory
and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that
were not, in the aggregate, material to them.

The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits
total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that
these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims.

In 2010, Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (CECONY) estimated
that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years is US$10 million.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two regulated utility subsidiaries:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R).  CECONY provides electric
service and gas service in New York City and Westchester County.
The Company is headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. ConEd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. is facing about 100 pending suits
related to a July 2007 rupture of a steam main located in midtown
Manhattan.

The suits seeks unspecified compensatory and, in some cases,
punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and
business interruption.

In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(CECONY) steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured.  It has
been reported that one person died and others were injured as a
result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged.  Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.

The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two regulated utility subsidiaries:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R).  CECONY provides electric
service and gas service in New York City and Westchester County.
The Company is headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $13.9MM Net A&E Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's reserves for unpaid asbestos-
and environmental-related loss and loss adjustment expenses
include US$14 million of gross reserves and US$13.9 million of net
reserves as of March 31, 2011, and US$14.1 million of gross
reserves and US$14 million of net reserves as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Those reserves are for asbestos and environmental impairment
claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of
Capitol Transamerica Corporation and Platte River Insurance
Company (CATA) between 1969 and 1976.  This subsidiary exited the
business in 1976.

Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property and casualty and
surety insurance business through its wholly owned subsidiary
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Remains Defendant in "Premises" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the previous
owners generally have contractually agreed to retain liability
for, and to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure
claims.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
two tendered claims, 39 resolved claims, and 1,079 unresolved
claims.  During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded six tendered claims, five resolved claims, and 1,139
unresolved claims.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
Cases include all cases for which service has been received by the
Company.  Certain prior cases that were filed in error against the
Company have been dismissed.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
four claims filed, one claim resolved, and 40 unresolved claims.
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company recorded
one claim filed, one claims resolved, and 39 claims unresolved.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of nil and US$75,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010,
respectively.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company had an accrual of
US$225,000 relating to these cases.

Huntsman Corporation manufactures differentiated organic chemical
products and of inorganic chemical products. Its products are used
in applications, including those in the adhesives, aerospace,
automotive, construction products, durable and non-durable
consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and
coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile
chemicals and dye industries.  The Company is headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Faces Cases in Canadian Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues face asbestos-related lawsuits in
Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench.

W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn. are also named as
defendants.  The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants.  The latter proceeding, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks
the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly
provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class
of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace
& Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian
Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of
America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and
other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act.  That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions.

The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian
actions -- except for claims against the Canadian government.
That settlement, which has subsequently been amended -- Canadian
Settlement -- will be entirely funded by Grace.  The Canadian
Court issued an Order on Dec. 13, 2009 approving the Canadian
Settlement.

The Company does not have any positive obligations under the
Canadian Settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the release of
claims.  The release in favor of the Grace parties -- including
the Company -- will become operative upon the effective date of a
plan of reorganization in Grace's U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that
the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject
to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order on Jan. 31,
2011, and the Clarifying Order on Feb. 15, 2011.  The Canadian
Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full
effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all
provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Confirmation Order's terms.

Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-
based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  Its operations
generate about 54% of its revenue from outside the United States
and about 16% of its revenue from developing regions.  The Company
is headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $277,000 for Gradall Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, that is expected to be re-mediated over time,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

On March 31, 2011, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,474,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility.  Three specific remediation projects that were
identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation
with a remaining reserve balance of US$9,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes and services
high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and
agriculture.  The Company's products include tractor-mounted
mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street
sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment,
pothole patchers, zero turn radius mowers, agricultural implements
and related aftermarket parts and services.  The Company is based
in Seguin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing Against Burlington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is party to a number of personal
injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been
exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.  However,
other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive
component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until
they were substantially eliminated at the Company by 1985.

It is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to
be filed through the year 2050.  The Company recorded an amount
for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a
relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees
hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF specific data that was the basis for the study.

The Company projects that about 60%, 80% and 95% of the future
unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15
and 25 years, respectively.

The Company's accrued obligations for asbestos and other personal
injury matters was US$563 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2011, compared with US$648 million from Feb. 13, 2010 to
March 31, 2010.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is a holding company that
conducts no operating activities and owns no significant assets
other than through its interests in its subsidiaries.  Through its
subsidiaries, the Company is engaged primarily in the freight rail
transportation business.  The Company is based in Fort Worth, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 19, 2011.

In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to these proceedings is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and marine
support services to the global offshore energy industry through
the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels.
The Company operates in two reportable segments: International and
the United States, and it has one of the broadest global operating
footprints in the offshore energy industry.  The Company is based
in New Orleans, La.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Okays Albany Int'l. Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted Albany
International Corp.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos
lawsuit filed in behalf of Robert James.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No.
08C-11-215 ASB on Feb. 16, 2011.

Charlene James alleged that her husband Robert James died of
mesothelioma caused by occupational and non-occupational exposure
to asbestos-containing products.

Mrs. James' claims against Albany related to Mr. James' work with
dryer felts at the ITT Rayonier Pulp and Paper Mills (Gray's
Harbor Mill) in Washington state, where he was employed from 1946
to 1988.

Albany had moved for summary judgment on the basis that Mrs. James
had offered no evidence establishing that Mr. James was exposed to
an asbestos-containing Albany product.

In response, Mrs. James presented responses to discovery in which
Albany stated that it sold asbestos-containing dryer felts from
around 1967 to 1976, and that it supplied a particular style of
asbestos-containing dryer felt to the Gray's Harbor Mill on
April 13, 1973 and Jan. 1, 1976.

Mrs. James contended that this evidence supported an inference
that Mr. James was exposed to asbestos fibers by working with
Albany dryer felts.  Albany's Motion for Summary Judgment was
granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment Partly Okayed in Ashworth
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, partially
granted and partially denied Pneumo Abex, LLC's motion for summary
judgment in an asbestos case filed on behalf of Sherman Ashworth.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09C-
09-123 ASB on Feb. 14, 2011.

The Court concluded that Plaintiff's wrongful death claim, arising
from her husband Sherman Ashworth's death of mesothelioma, was
timely filed, and that genuine factual disputes existed, which
precluded summary judgment in favor of Pneumo Abex, LLC on the
issue of liability.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Sept. 27, 2009.  Abex submitted
for purposes of its motion that "the very latest Plaintiff's
decedent could have been aware that asbestos exposure caused his
disease was Sept. 6, 2007."

Plaintiff's survival action, which derived from the underlying
personal injury action that accrued to Mr. Ashworth during his
lifetime, would be subject to either a two-year limitations period
under Delaware's statute of limitations for personal injury
actions or a four-year limitations period under Utah law.
Accordingly, the limitation period applicable to Plaintiff's
survival claim expired, at the latest, on Sept. 6, 2009, five days
before her Complaint was filed.

Abex's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part as to
Plaintiff's survival action and denied in part as to her wrongful
death claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Tarrance's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the
Nov. 13, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which
denied Roosevelt Tarrance, Jr.'s claim for entitlement to service
connection for asbestosis.

The case is styled Roosevelt Tarrance, Jr., Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 09-1729 on March 3,
2011.

Mr. Tarrance had a period of active duty training from September
1963 to March 1964, and served on active duty in the U.S. Army
from May 1964 to March 1967.  His service personnel records
reflected that his military occupational specialties included duty
soldier and engineer supply and parts specialist.

Service personnel records revealed that Mr. Tarrance was stationed
at Fort Campbell, Ky. with principal duties as a supply handler
starting in January 1964 and that he was transferred overseas to
Europe in May 1964.  His service treatment records, including the
September 1963 physical examination for entry into the U.S. Army
Reserve, February 1964 reenlistment examination, and September
1966 separation examination reports, did not disclose any
complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of asbestosis or asbestos
exposure, and reflected normal lung findings.

In November 2003, Mr. Tarrance filed a claim for entitlement to
service connection for asbestosis.  His claim was denied by a VA
regional office (RO) in June 2004.  He filed a Notice of
Disagreement, and eventually, on Nov. 13, 2008, the Board issued
the decision currently on appeal before this Court.

After consideration of Mr. Tarrance's and the Secretary's briefs,
and a review of the record, the Board's Nov. 13, 2008 decision was
affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Exposure Linked to Caversham Man's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest was told that the death of 63-year-old Peter Waters, of
Sheldon Rise, Caversham, England, was due to workplace exposure to
asbestos, getreading reports.

Mr. Waters had spent most of his working life in the building and
decorating trade.  The inquest, held on May 10, 2011, heard that
fluid was found on Mr. Waters' lungs in early 2009 and he was
diagnosed with a mesothelioma in October 2009.

Mr. Waters died on Oct. 29, 2010.  A post mortem examination
carried out by Dr. Colin McCormick confirmed Mr. Waters had been
exposed to asbestos when fibers of the substance were found in the
deceased's lung.

Coroner Peter Bedford recorded Mr. Waters died of industrial
disease malignant mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yardley Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy coroner Rodney Haig said that the death of 96-year-old
William George Lambert, of Yardley Gobion, Northamptonshire,
England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the
Advertiser & Bicester Review reports.

On Oct. 14, 2010, Mr. Lambert died at Northampton General Hospital
after contracting malignant mesothelioma.  Before he died, he said
he was unsure where he had been exposed to asbestos, but it is
believed it could have happened when he was working as a
bricklayer.

Mr. Lambert was a keen gardener and interested in local history.
Mr. Haig recorded a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacobs Exposure Lawsuit Filed Against 42 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard and Barbara Jacobs, on April 20, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 42 defendant corporations in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In their complaint, the Jacobs couple alleges the defendants
caused Mr. Jacobs to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the complaint, Mr. Richard Jacobs worked as a foreman
at TRW Inc. Metals Division from 1957 until 1971, as a melting
supervisor at Advance Casting from 1972 until 1973, as a foundry
foreman from 1973 until 1974 and as a laborer at Teledyne Cast
Products from 1974 until 1999.

In their 10-count complaint, the Jacobs couple seeks a judgment of
more than US$200,000, plus punitive and exemplary damages of more
than US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000,
compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages
in an amount to punish the defendants for their misconduct.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Jacobs couple in
St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-202.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Yorkshire Workers to Learn About Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers in South Yorkshire, England's building trades are being
given the chance to learn how to recognize and deal with one of
their industry's biggest killers -- asbestos -- according to a
Health and Safety Executive press release dated May 23, 2011.

A series of training courses is being offered by the South
Yorkshire & Humber Working Well Together Group -- a partnership
between key players in the construction sector and allied trades,
plus the HSE.  Courses are aimed mainly at small and medium
businesses and welcome everyone from joiners and painters to
plumbers and general builders.

Eight half-day sessions are being run by the Group in Barnsley,
Sheffield, Wath Upon Dearne and Worksop in June 2011.  They will
give young and older workers alike vital knowledge and awareness
of what asbestos is, what it looks like in various forms and how
to deal with it if it is discovered while working on a job.

HSE Principal Inspector David Redman, who is responsible for the
construction sector in South Yorkshire & the Humber, said,
"Asbestos can be present in any building built before 2000, so
there are literally tens of thousands of them in the region.
Asbestos surveys should be carried out before work starts on a
construction or demolition project and workers told where asbestos
could be found and what should be done if it is discovered
accidentally.

"Often this is not done, so the law requires anyone who may come
into contact with asbestos at work to have asbestos awareness
training. This includes joiners, electricians, decorators, heating
engineers and general builders."

The training sessions are being held at Barnsley Metrodome Leisure
on June 2, 2011; Bridge Safety & Training, Sheffield, on June 3,
2011; Dearne Valley College on June 9, 2011 and North Notts
Create, Worksop, on June 10, 2011.  A place costs GBP10 per person
for a company with fewer than 15 employees or GBP20 for a company
with 16 or more.

Booking forms are available at http://www.wwt.uk.com/or contact
jan.foers@hse.gsi.gov.uk or mark.atkinson@clugston.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Humber Locals to Learn About Asbestos Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers in building trades in the Humber region of Northern
England are being given the chance to learn how to recognize and
deal with one of their industry's biggest killers -- asbestos --
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
May 18, 2011.

A series of training courses is being offered by the South
Yorkshire & Humber Working Well Together Group -- a partnership
between key players in the construction sector and allied trades,
plus the HSE.  Courses are aimed mainly at small and medium
businesses and welcome everyone from joiners and painters to
plumbers and general builders.

Eight sessions are being run by the Group over June 2011 in Goole,
Grimsby, Hull and Beverley which will give young and older workers
alike vital knowledge and awareness of what asbestos is, what it
looks like in various forms and how to deal with it if it is
discovered while working on a job.

HSE Principal Inspector David Redman, who is responsible for the
construction sector in South Yorkshire & the Humber, said,
"Asbestos can be present in any building built before 2000, so
there are literally tens of thousands of them in the region.
Asbestos surveys should be carried out before work starts on a
construction or demolition project and workers told where asbestos
could be found and what should be done if it is discovered
accidentally.

"Often this is not done, so the law requires anyone who may come
into contact with asbestos at work to have asbestos awareness
training. This includes joiners, electricians, decorators, heating
engineers and general builders."

Eight half-day training sessions are being held; on May 25, 2011
in Goole, May 26, 2011 in Grimsby, June 15, 2011 in Hull and
June 16, 2011 in Beverley.  East costs GBP10 per person for a
company with fewer than 15 employees or GBP20 for a company with
16 or more.

Booking forms are available at http://www.wwt.uk.com/or contact
jan.foers@hse.gsi.gov.uk or mark.atkinson@clugston.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Barbara Barron, executrix of the Estate
of Junior E. Barron, deceased vs. A.W. Chesterton Company; Amchem
Products, Inc.; Aurora Pump Company; et al. was filed on May 5,
2011 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

Mrs. Barron claims the 87 defendants are responsible for her
husband's asbestosis and death.  She seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.

William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents Mrs. Barron and Case No.
11-C-729 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Edward A. Reed and Helen P. Reed vs. 3M
Company; 4520 Corporation, Inc.; A.K. Steel Corporation; et al was
filed on May 9, 2011 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

The Reeds claim the 135 defendants are responsible for Mr. Reed's
mesothelioma.  They seek a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.

Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst,
Esq., and Joseph Satterley, Esq., represent the Reeds.  Case No.
11-C-747 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Filed on May 9 in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Edward A. Reed vs. Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Norfolk and Western Railway Company was filed last May 9, 2011 in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Mr. Reed claims during his employment with the defendant he was
exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, which caused him
to develop mesothelioma.  He seeks judgment against the defendant
in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limitation.

Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John E. Guerry
III, Esq., and Joseph Satterly, Esq., represent Mr. Reed.  Case
No. 11-C-748 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pandocchi Claim v. 103 Firms Filed Last May 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Jeffrey Pandocchi and Kathryn
Pandocchi, his wife vs. A.O. Smith Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic
Corporation; Allegheny Energy, Inc.; et al was filed last May 11,
2011 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

The Pandocchis claim the 103 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Pandocchi's asbestosis.  They seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents the Pandocchis and Case No. 11-C-
768 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apperley Widow Seeks Help to Claim Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cooper, of Apperley Bridge, West Yorkshire, England, and
the widow of Kenneth Cooper who died after being exposed to
asbestos at work, is appealing for his former work colleagues at a
Bradford textile mill to come forward, Telegraph & Argus reports.

Mr. Cooper was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006 and died on
Nov. 14, 2007 at the age of 62.  An inquest found he had died of
industrial disease.

Mr. Cooper was exposed to asbestos while working at Woolcombers
Ltd in Bradford in the late 1960s, according to trade union law
firm OH Parsons.  He carried out maintenance work on pipework
lagged with asbestos at Woolcombers.

Mr. Cooper was never warned of the dangers of asbestos and was
exposed to asbestos dust without being provided with a mask, said
lawyer Paul Meehan, industrial disease specialist at OH Parsons.

Mrs. Cooper said Mr. Cooper had mentioned a former colleague
called Geoffrey Walker, of Skipton, whom she believes was also
diagnosed with the disease.  Woolcombers Group PLC was dissolved
in March 2010, according to Companies House.

Anyone who can help should contact Mr. Meehan on (0207) 395 8560
or 07554 451918.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Mason's Kin Seeks Help in Payout Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Neil Woodward, a retired Oxford stonemason who died
from cancer caused by asbestos, seeks for former colleagues to
help get answers in their claim for compensation, the Oxford Mail
reports.

Mr. Woodward died at the age of 75 in May 2010.  He had worked as
a stonemason in the city for decades, specializing in fixing
statues and gargoyles around the university colleges.  However, it
was not until after his death that it was revealed he had been
suffering with mesothelioma.

From 1949 until 1968, Mr. Woodward worked for Axtell and Perry, a
building company based in Osney Mead, which changed its name to
Symm & Company.  He worked on buildings, including St Peter's
Church, Balliol College, St John's College, Trinity College, St
Michael's Church, Christ Church and other colleges.

In July 2010, coroner Nicholas Gardiner recorded a verdict that
Mr. Woodward had died as a result of an industrial illness.

Now Mr. Woodward's family is determined to fight for further
answers and is urging former colleagues to come forward to find
out how he became exposed to asbestos.

Kim Barrett from Irwin Mitchell solicitors, which represents Mrs.
Woodward, said, "In order to obtain justice for his family, I need
to hear from people who have information concerning the working
practices at sites contracted out by Axtell and Perry between 1949
and 1954, and Symm & Company between 1961 and 1968."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Divito Claim v. Afton, Others Filed May 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Divito, on behalf of Antonio Divito's estate, filed an
asbestos lawsuit on May 19, 2011 in the Harris County District
Court, Tex., against Afton Pumps and others alleging negligence,
the Ultimate East End reports.

Ms. Divito says that Mr. Divito's untimely death was caused by his
work with asbestos-contaminated materials while employed by
various machine shops, including Afton Pumps.

According to the brief, the defendants failed to provide a safe
work environment by conspiring to hide the dangers associated with
asbestos exposure from employees and the public.

In Case No. 2011-29592, Ms. Divito seeks all damages to which she
is entitled and court costs.  She is being represented in the case
by Houston attorney W. Mark Lanier, Esq.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMD Ind. Penalized $1.25MM for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has issued penalties of US$1,247,400 to AMD
Industries Inc. in Cicero, Ill., after five unprotected and
untrained workers allegedly were required to conduct asbestos
removal exposing them to the cancer-causing material, according to
an OSHA press release dated May 25, 2011.

The Company was issued 19 willful and eight serious health
citations following an OSHA inspection at its facilities in
December 2010, in response to a referral from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis said, "AMD failed in its duty to
protect the health and safety of its workers.  Such disregard will
not be tolerated by the Labor Department.  No one should risk
serious illness or death to earn a paycheck."

OSHA investigators found that AMD Industries had commissioned a
safety audit of its Cicero facility in 2002, which uncovered the
presence of asbestos-containing materials on boilers, heating
units and connected piping.

In November 2010, the Company began an asbestos removal project
using in-house and untrained workers.  The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency became aware of the work and asked the Illinois
Attorney General's Office to proceed with an enforcement action
for the improper removal, handling and disposal of asbestos-
containing material.

An agreed order was entered into by the Company to implement a
program to remediate the asbestos contamination.  Workers
allegedly were exposed to materials containing 20%-50% asbestos.

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health
Dr. David Michaels said, "Asbestos exposure can be deadly.  AMD
Industries knew it was assigning workers to asbestos removal work
and failed to take the most basic safety precautions.  This
employer did not provide protective respirators or even warn the
workers of the risk to their health from removing the material."

OSHA issued 15 willful citations, with proposed penalties of
US$945,000, for the employer's failures to provide the employees
engaged in the hazardous work with the proper training, and
protective clothing and equipment.

Additionally, AMD Industries was fined US$252,000 for four willful
violations for the following alleged failures:

-- To identify or inform workers of the location and quantity of
   asbestos;

-- To monitor airborne concentrations of asbestos;

-- To use high-efficiency particulate air vacuums and wet
   methods to control the dust; and

-- To promptly and properly dispose of asbestos-contaminated
   waste.

OSHA also issued eight serious citations, with proposed fines of
US$50,400, for failing to implement a respirator protection
program; failing to use engineering controls and work practices
for Class I asbestos work; not conducting asbestos work in
regulated areas; and failing to provide hygiene facilities for
workers removing the dangerous material.

AMD Industries has 15 business days from receipt of its citations
and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with
OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dean's Ford Penalized $132T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Ford's Lumber and Building Supply Company has been fined
US$132,000 and ordered to fix several asbestos-related violations
or face additional fines, Local12 reports.

Mr. Ford's Lumber and Building Supply Company has been cited for
16 knowing violations of health and safety regulations by the
Indiana State Department of Labor.

Mr. Ford and a contractor, James Reed, have also been named in a
notice of violation by the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management.  Investigators say Mr. Ford knowingly exposed people
inside that property to the most dangerous form of asbestos.

State inspectors say, for many months or possibly years, Mr. Ford
and his employees exposed people who live and work on this
property to highly dangerous chrysotile asbestos.  They were
exposed because miles of asbestos wrapped pipe was improperly
removed.  The asbestos covered pipe ran between and through
buildings all around the property.

State officials say some of the violations continued into April
2011 even while Mr. Ford knew he was being investigated.  The
penalties imposed by the Indiana Department of Labor are just one
layer in a number of on-going investigations.

They have until May 30, 2011 to either appeal or pay the
department of labor fines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Corp. Seeks to Vacate $322M Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has requested a US$322 million asbestos
verdict be vacated and Smith County, Miss., Judge Eddie Bowen
recuse himself from the case, LegalNewsline.com reports.

The Company recently found that Judge Bowen's father filed two
asbestos lawsuits in state courts in 1989 and 1992.

On the still-pending second, Judge Bowen's attorney was now-
incarcerated plaintiffs attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who has
pleaded guilty to two judicial bribery schemes.  Union Carbide, on
the hook for half the verdict with Chevron Phillips Chemical
facing the other, investigated the matter after Bowen made a few
"casual, off-the-record," remarks during the trial.

More than 1,100 citizens of Smith County were summoned as
potential jurors for the case.  Jury panel members who had
connections to asbestos litigation through immediate family
members were excused by Judge Bowen because of a potential for
bias.

After a three-week trial, jurors awarded US$300 million in
punitive damages to Thomas Brown, who also received US$22 million
in actual damages.  He was represented by the Hossley Embry law
firm of Dallas and Tullos & Tullos of Raleigh.

Like Judge Bowen's father, Mr. Brown claimed asbestos products
were defective in design and in warning, the motion says.  Judge
Bowen's father and mother settled their claims with many
defendants, including Union Carbide, after requesting US$1 million
in the complaint.

Judge Bowen's father also sued Johns Manville, which was the
asbestos supplier for CP Chem.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against it.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies.

The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this
situation.  The Company said it believes it has additional
policies available for other years, which have been ignored by the
carriers.

IntriCon Corporation is an international firm engaged in
designing, developing, manufacturing and distributing miniature
and micro-miniature body-worn devices.  In addition to its
operations in Minnesota, the Company has facilities in Maine,
California, Singapore and Germany.  The Company is headquartered
in Arden Hills, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 430 Property Damage Claims Open v. W.R. Grace
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. says that, as of March 31, 2011, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date remain outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 395 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$146.8 million.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is headquartered in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Personal Injury Actions Still Pending v. Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury claims
that allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-
containing products formerly manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
about 16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about
35,720 PI Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products
were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and
judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the
Company.  The Company said it believes that a substantial number
of additional PI Claims would have been received between the
Filing Date and March 31, 2011 had such PI Claims not been stayed
by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims.  A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is headquartered in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage From 54 Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. says that, as of March 31, 2011, there remains
about US$970 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from
54 presently solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.
For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims.

Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities
has not been commercially available to the Company.

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is headquartered in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $143.5MM A&E Remediation Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s estimated liability for environmental
investigative and remediation costs -- non-asbestos and asbestos-
related -- totaled US$143.5 million at March 31, 2011, as compared
with US$145.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is headquartered in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $52.3MM Libby Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., was US$52.3 million
at March 31, 2011 and US$52.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby in 1963 and
operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite ore from the Libby mine was
used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other products.
Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby mine was
contaminated with naturally-occurring asbestos.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has investigated sites,
including sites owned by the Company, which used, stored or
processed vermiculite from the Libby mine.  The Company and other
potentially responsible parties have conducted investigations
and/or remedial actions at those sites identified by the EPA as
requiring remedial action.

During 2010, the EPA commenced a reinvestigation of up to 105
former or currently operating plants, including seven that are
currently owned by the Company, at which vermiculite from the
Libby mine was processed prior to 1990.  The Company is
cooperating with the EPA on this reinvestigation.

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is headquartered in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,520 Open Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,520 asbestos-related cases were outstanding at March 31,
2011, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be held
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2011.

About 1,540 asbestos cases were outstanding at Dec. 31, 2010 for
which the Company may be held responsible for any related
liabilities.  (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2011)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2011, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$11.7 million.  In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims for
coverage under this agreement, and received about US$2.7 million
in reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs.

In addition, in May 2010, the Company entered into an agreement
with an excess insurance carrier to provide it with limited
insurance coverage for defense and indemnity costs associated with
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted claims to this carrier since it has
exhausted its coverage under the agreement with the primary
insurance carrier discussed above and has received US$800,000 in
reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs.

Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes engine
management and air conditioning replacement parts for auto
aftermarkets.  The Company is headquartered in Long Island City,
N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,169 Cases Open v. Central Hudson at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of March 31, 2011, of the
3,327 asbestos cases brought against subsidiary Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corporation, about 1,169 remain pending.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, of the 3,324 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, about 1,167 remain pending.  (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 25, 2011)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, about 2,003
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases.

CH Energy Group, Inc.'s reportable operating segments are the
regulated electric utility business and regulated natural gas
utility business of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and
the unregulated fuel distribution business of Griffith Energy
Services, Inc.  The Company is headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Long-Term Liabilities Still at $66MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The long-term asbestos-related liabilities of Meritor, Inc. (f/k/a
ArvinMeritor, Inc.) amounted to US$66 million as of both March 31,
2011 and Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$66 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 18, 2011)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$19
million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$18 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010.

Long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$55 million as of
March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.  Current asbestos-related
recoveries were US$11 million as of March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30,
2010.

Meritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors.  The Company is
headquartered in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Still Has 26T Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Meritor, Inc. (f/k/a ArvinMeritor, Inc.), Maremont
Corporation, still has about 26,000 pending asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2011.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.  Maremont and many other companies are
defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future claims
were US$67 million as of both March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.
Maremont's asbestos-related insurance recoveries were US$57
million as of both March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Meritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors.  The Company is
headquartered in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Posts $18MM March 31 Rockwell Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. (f/k/a ArvinMeritor, Inc.) determined that the
probable liability for pending and future Rockwell International
asbestos claims over the next four years is US$18 million as of
March 31, 2011, compared with US$17 million as of Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company, along with many other companies, has also been named
as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the
automotive business to the Company from Rockwell in 1997.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$9 million at
March 31, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Meritor, Inc. is a premier global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.  The Company is
headquartered in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside, Remands Crane's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside, remanded
claims in an asbestos case styled Charles F. Crane, Appellant v.
Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-2053 on Feb. 28, 2011.

U.S. Navy veteran Charles F. Crane appealed through counsel from a
Feb. 24, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that:

-- Denied a disability rating in excess of 60% prior to
   April 1, 2008 for an asbestos-related lung condition;

-- Denied a compensable rating for the asbestos-related lung
   condition for the period after April 1, 2008;

-- Upheld a reduction from a 60% disability rating to a
   noncompensable rating for the asbestos-related lung
   condition, effective April 1, 2008; and

-- Denied service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary
   disorder (COPD) claimed as secondary to the asbestos-related
   lung condition.

Mr. Crane specifically stated that he did not appeal the first
issue.  The Court set aside the balance of the February 2009 Board
decision and remanded the remaining three matters for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.

Mr. Crane had active duty service from June 10, 1952 to June 1,
1956.  He served in the engine room of several ships.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fobbs Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld a May 20,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
entitlement to service connection for the cause of Charles C.
Fobbs' death.

The case is styled Valerie M. Fobbs, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-1998 on Feb. 28, 2011.

Valerie M. Fobbs, Mr. Fobbs' surviving spouse, appealed pro se
from the Board decision that denied entitlement to service
connection for the cause of Mr. Fobbs' death.  He served on active
duty in the Merchant Marine from April 1942 to August 1945.  He
passed away on Jan. 2, 1985.

The death certificate reflected that Mr. Fobbs died from
pneumococcus meningitis due to sepsis and a urinary tract
infection.  At the time of his death, he was not service connected
for any disabilities.  Following his death, however, Mrs. Fobbs
pursued a service-connection claim for the cause of Mr. Fobbs'
death, contending that he had suffered from a lung condition
developed from in-service exposure to asbestos.

The Court affirmed the Board's May 20, 2009 decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates, Remands Goshorn's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated an April 2,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Mack
Goshorn's claims of entitlement to service connection for a lung
disorder to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
asbestosis.

The Court remanded the claims for further adjudication in
accordance with the decision.

The case is styled Mack Goshorn, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 09-1362 on Feb. 25,
2011.

Mr. Goshorn served in the U.S. Air Force for over 21 years, from
November 1954 to June 1976.  Service records indicate that he
worked as a gas generation plant operator and a cryogenic fluids
production technician.  On Jan. 13, 1976, he underwent a
separation examination that included pulmonary function tests and
chest x-rays.

In March 2004, Mr. Goshorn filed a claim with VA for service
connection for a "breathing stenosis."  In a statement provided to
a VA regional office (RO), he stated that he worked with a variety
of chemicals as well as asbestos during service.

The Board held a hearing in September 2008 in which Mr. Goshorn
testified that, throughout his 20-plus year career, he worked with
a variety of chemicals on a daily basis and cut pieces of asbestos
to use as a heat shield for welding or soldering purposes every
two weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Decision in Florez Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New
York, affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court, Queens County,
which dismissed a claim involving asbestos styled Lincoln
Hernandez Florez, etc., appellant v. Michael Conlon, et al.,
defendants, Chris Schlesinger, et al., respondents.

Judges William F. Mastro, Peter B. Skelos, John M. Leventhal, and
Sheri S. Roman entered judgment in Case No. 2010-02199 (Index No.
6551/08) on March 8, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
plaintiff appealed a branch of the cross motion of Chris
Schlesinger and Schlesinger Development, LLC, which was for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted
against them.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a ladder
while engaged in asbestos removal work on a single-family home
renovation project.  The owner of the home contracted directly
with the plaintiff's employer.

The plaintiff commenced the action against Chris Schlesinger and
Schlesinger Development, LLC, the construction managers, alleging
violations of Labor Law ss 200, s 240(1), and 241(6), and common-
law negligence.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants' cross
motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
insofar as asserted against them.


                             *********

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  * * *