CAR_Public/110606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, June 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 110

                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in Arkansas
ADVANCED BATTERY: Faces 4 Class Action Lawsuits in New York
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $4.6MM Balance From Class Settlement
AG EDWARDS: Appeals Court OKs Class Action Settlement Agreement
ALUMINA LTD: Units Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal

ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Software Engineers
AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Still Pending
AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
BDO USA: Austinite Pam Reed Files Class Action Over Stanford
BEN & JERRY'S: Ice-Cream Buyers Can Pursue Class Action

BURGER KING: Accessibility Suit vs. 86 Restaurants Still Pending
BURGER KING: Agrees to Settle Consolidated NFA Class Suit for $0
BURGER KING: Final Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set June 15
C.R. ENGLAND: Concealed Material Data About "Driving Opportunity"
CABLEWORX CABLING: Refuses to Pay $283,600 Worth of Materials

CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare Policies
COVENTRY HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $9.75MM Suit Settlement
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger-Related Suits
FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits

FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in "Celexa" Class Suits
GEROVA FIN'L: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: Accused of Making Unsolicited Text Messages
GOOGLE INC: Judge Approves Buzz Class Action Settlement
HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Court OK of Interchange Suit Settlement

HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend "Jaffe" Class Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Litigation
HSBC USA: Deal to Settle Interchange Fee Suit Pending Court Okay
HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Injunction in "Foster" Suit

INTERCLICK INC: Continues to Defend "Bose" Class Suit in New York
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Arch Coal Merger
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Class Suit by IBEW Union
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated Pension Suit
JANOME AMERICA: Recalls 600 Sewing Machines Due to Fire Hazard

JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Preliminary OK of "Cardenas" Suit Deal
KAHN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 35 Baby Hats Due to Asphyxiation Hazard
KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Sued for Failing to Comply with IWAA
LOGITECH INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Results

MEDCATH CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Knox-Keene Violation Suit
NICOR INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Proposed AGL Merger
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Can Amend Complaint vs. NMFC
NUCOR CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Still Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Enforce Deal in Calif. Class Suit Denied

NVIDIA CORP: Hearing Set for July 28 on Motion to Dismiss Suit
OCLARO INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
PETSMART INC: Suits Over 2007 Pet Food Recalls Concluded
POSTROCK ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit in Kansas Remains Pending
PRUDENTIAL PLC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits

QANTAS: Settles Class Action Over Fuel Surcharge for AU$2.1 Mil.
SANDISK CORP: Conference in Indirect Purchasers' Suit Set June 23
SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear "Ritz" Class Certification on Nov. 15
SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
ST. JUDE: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuits in Canada

ST. JUDE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ST. JUDE: Court Approval of "AGA Medical" Suits Settlement Pending
STATER BROS: "O'Connor" Suit Settlement Amount Recorded
STERIS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Winter Haven Suit Settlement
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending

TMX FINANCE: Expects Class Settlement Administration to Begin July
TMX FINANCE: Faces Suit in Missouri for Not Paying Overtime Fees
TWILIO INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Message Calls
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement
VERTRUE LLC: Settles Class Action over Membership Programs

WONDER AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action in New York




                             *********

ACXIOM CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation is facing a purported class action lawsuit in
Arkansas commenced by Macomb County Employees' Retirement System,
which alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws,
according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit styled Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System v. Acxiom Corporation, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
against the Company and certain current and former officers and a
director of the Company.  The action seeks to be certified as a
class action covering persons who acquired Acxiom stock between
October 27, 2010, and March 30, 2011.  The action purports to
assert claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by not properly disclosing that the Company was experiencing a
significant decline in its International operations and that the
Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its International operations.  The Company and the
individual defendants dispute such allegations and intend to
vigorously contest the case.


ADVANCED BATTERY: Faces 4 Class Action Lawsuits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Battery Technologies Inc. is defending itself against
four class action lawsuits in New York alleging violations of
securities laws, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Since April 2011, four class actions have been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of the Company's senior executive
officers, asserting violations of the United States securities
laws.  The complaints allege that the Company, in its filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, made material
misrepresentations and omissions.  The plaintiffs in the actions
seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between November 24, 2008 and March 30, 2011.  No
specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The Company and its
senior management believe that the claims are without merit.  They
intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek
their prompt dismissal after a consolidated complaint is filed.


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $4.6MM Balance From Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., disclosed
that it had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses of $4.6
million associated with the settlement of a class action lawsuit
in Washington, according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the
manufacturing process.

At March 31, 2011, the Company had a total remaining balance in
accrued expenses of $4.6 million associated with the settlement of
the class action lawsuit. The Company accrued an estimated $2.9
million for resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the
Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in
resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The
estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information
that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning
primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for
submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process
will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT of $2.0 million
until the claim resolution process is completed.

Since 1989, Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc.
has pioneered the use of recycled polyethylene plastic in the
manufacture of composite building materials..


AG EDWARDS: Appeals Court OKs Class Action Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for Riverfront Times, reports that a $60
million class-action settlement agreement between A.G. Edwards and
a group of account holders who accused the company of a conflict
of interest and unjust enrichment has been permitted to stand.

The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District released an opinion
on May 31, upholding the agreement and rejecting the claims of
account holders who objected to the settlement and attempted to
intervene in the case.  That means a staggering $21 million will
go to the attorneys who handled the litigation.

The agreement was reached in February 2010 after repeated attempts
by the St. Louis-based financial services company to have the suit
dismissed or moved to federal court.

The company -- which is now part of the Wells Fargo behemoth --
literally moved the case to federal court no less than three
times, only to find themselves sent packing back to state court by
federal judges.  It twice attempted to get the Missouri Supreme
Court to intervene.  It also filed motions attempting to dismiss
the case at least six times.

Once all those appeals were exhausted, the company agreed to
mediation.  The result? A settlement requiring the company to pay
$26 million in cash to the class-action members, along with $34
million in vouchers.

That outlay, however, includes $21 million in fees to the
attorneys who pursued the case.  It also includes up to $1 million
(for A.G. Edwards to administer the settlement) and $600,000 (for
legal expenses, on top of those $21 million in fees) -- all to be
paid out before any plaintiffs see a dime.

In light of that, suffice it to say, there won't be much cash left
for the class' 1.6 million members.  Other than the two lead
plaintiffs, who were each awarded $10,000, our calculations
suggest that other 1.5999 million members of the class could be
looking at a mere $2 each, plus whatever vouchers they're entitled
to.

But the appeals court found in its opinion today that the trial
court did not err in ruling that settlement was "fair, reasonable
and adequate."

Its opinion concludes, "there is no evidence of any fraud or
collusion behind the settlement and neither [of the plaintiffs
objecting to the settlement] allege there was fraud or collusion.
Second, the litigation leading up to settlement lasted nearly five
years, was procedurally and substantively complex, and was
expensive with the likelihood of potential additional years,
complexity, and expense on appeal.  Third, the settlement was
reached weeks before trial and after extensive discovery had been
completed.  Fourth, the bottom range of possible recovery was no
recovery, considering the weakness of Plaintiffs' claims.  Fifth,
the opinions of class counsel and class representatives
unanimously favored the settlement without objection."

The original lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleged that mutual-fund
companies had made payments to A.G. Edwards.  The lawsuit alleged
that "[t]he undisclosed kickbacks paid to Defendants created
unmanageable and continuing conflicts of interest and breaches of
fiduciary duties . . .. These secret kickbacks provided
undisclosed and improper compensation to the Defendants, while the
preferred funds received increased visibility in the Defendants'
extensive mutual fund distribution network."

A.G. Edwards was acquired by Wachovia in 2007.  One year after
that, Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia.  The company is now
headquartered in South Dakota.


ALUMINA LTD: Units Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alumina Limited's subsidiaries, St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. and
Alcoa Inc., are awaiting a ruling on their motion to dismiss an
appeal in the lawsuit relating to Hurricane Georges, according to
the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighbouring residential areas.  Various cleanup and remediation
efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA.  A Notice of
Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection
(DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)
of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by Alcoa
Inc.  A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the
Virgin Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief
for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated with
"bauxite or red dust" from the SCA facility.  The suit, which has
been removed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the
"Court"), names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore Ltd. as defendants,
and, in August 2000, was accorded class action treatment.  The
class is defined to include persons in various defined
neighbourhoods who "suffered damages and/or injuries as a result
of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust and red
mud blown during Hurricane Georges."  All of the defendants have
denied liability, and discovery and other pre-trial proceedings
have been underway since 1999.

Plaintiff's expert reports claim that the material blown during
Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained
crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The reports
further claim, among other things, that the population of the six
subject neighbourhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730
people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of
the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to
lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and
punitive relief.  These opinions have been contested by the
defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that
plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in
any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime
medical monitoring.  Alcoa Inc. and SCA moved to decertify the
plaintiff class, and the assigned district judge adopted a
recommendation that class certification be maintained for
liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after
liability issues have been resolved.  Alcoa and SCA have turned
over this matter to their insurance carriers who are providing a
defence.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa
and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

In June 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
new class.  Under the new certification order, there is no class
as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages
claims.  (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims
for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the
certification motions.)  The Court did certify a new class as to
the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek clean
up, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at the
facility.  The Court expressly denied certification of a class as
to any claims for remediation or cleanup of any area outside the
facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new class could
seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.  Named
plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their claims for
personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.  Named
plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their claims for
personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.

In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and punitive
damages, and denied the motion with respect to their property
damage claims.  In September 2009, the Court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief.  As of October 29, 2009, plaintiffs appealed
the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for
injunctive relief and Alcoa and SCA filed a motion to dismiss that
appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  A
decision by the Third Court is pending.  The Company says it is
unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.


ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Software Engineers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTs software inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of software engineers, according to the
Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee filed a class action
complaint against the Company on behalf of all current and former
software engineers for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to provide meal breaks, among other things, in Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo.  The former employee
is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees and penalties
of well over $1.00 million.  No trial date has yet been set.

On March 9, 2011, the Court certified the class and a subclass
consisting solely of former engineering employees who signed
release agreements, with another former employee as the sub-class
representative.  Based on the litigation still being in the
preliminary stages, an estimate of possible losses, if any, cannot
be made at this time.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is
without merit and intends to continue vigorously defending itself.
The cost of associated legal defense fees may be material with any
required cash payments to the former employees being more material
and detrimental.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., continues to vigorously defend itself
against a consolidated class action complaint filed in Delaware.

Aviat and certain of its former executive officers and directors
were named in a federal securities class action complaint filed on
September 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's shares as part of the
merger between Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications
Division of Harris Corporation.  The action relates to the
restatement of the Company's prior financial statements as
discussed in its fiscal 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2008.
Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court
of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008.  Each complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action
is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  The actions were
consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.  On July 27, 2010, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss that the Company and the officer and
director defendants had filed.  On September 9, 2010, the Company
and the officer and director defendants filed an answer denying
the material allegations of the consolidated class action
complaint.

No updates were reported in the May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 1, 2011.

Aviat Networks, Inc., provides wireless transmission solutions.
It applies innovation and IP networking expertise toward building
a carrier class foundation for future mobile and fixed broadband
networks.  With more than 750,000 systems installed around the
world, Aviat Networks has built a reputation as a leader in
offering best-of-breed solutions including LTE-ready microwave
backhaul and a complete portfolio of service and support options
to public and private telecommunications operators worldwide.
Aviat Networks, formerly Harris Stratex Networks Inc., is
headquartered in Santa Clara, California and is listed on NASDAQ
(AVNW).


AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustees of the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Axa Rosenberg Group
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02594-DMR (N.D. Calif. May 31, 2011),
says defendants, in violation of their inherent fiduciary duties
and those fiduciary duties set forth under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"), recklessly engaged in imprudent and
disloyal investment activities by permitting a coding error to
occur in AXA Rosenberg's investment model and failing to report
the coding error in a timely manner, which exposed plaintiff to
additional undisclosed investment risks and resulted in
substantial losses to plaintiff's investments.

According to the Complaint, defendants' acts and omissions are
breaches of the duty of loyalty and duty of prudence under ERISA
Section 404(a) and breaches of co-fiduciary duty under ERISA
Section 405, which entitle plaintiff, pursuant to ERISA Section
502(a)(2), to recover appropriate relief under ERISA Section 409
and, pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), to enjoin acts that
violate ERISA.

Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001,
et seq., in that they exercised discretion over the management of
ERISA plan assets.  Furthermore, defendant AXA Rosenberg
Investment Management LLC acknowledges it is a fiduciary in
writing and is an Investment Manager within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. Section 1002(38).

AXA Rosenberg Group, headquartered in Orinda, California, is a
quantitative investment firm that provides investment management
services to pension funds, profit sharing plans, government
entities, insurance companies, foundations, and endowments.  AXA
Rosenberg also invests for retail clients through mutual funds and
other vehicles that it manages or sub-advises.  Currently, AXA
Rosenberg manages in excess of $30 billion of assets on behalf of
its clients.

The Plaintiff -- the Trustees of the Carpenters Pension Fund of
Illinois -- is located at 28 North 1st Street, in Geneva,
Illinois.  In December 2005, the plaintiff entered into a
Subscription Agreement to invest in the AXA Rosenberg
International Small Cap Institutional Fund LLC.

The plaintiff relates that in January 2007, as part of an upgrade,
a "coding error" was inadvertently introduced into AXA Rosenberg's
investment model.  The work by the computer programmers who
corrupted AXA Rosenberg's algorithms was not independently
monitored.  Moreover, AXA Rosenberg's internal tests and controls
proved insufficient, as they did not identify and remedy the
coding error.

Allegedly, in June 2009 the coding error was discovered by a
Rosenberg Research Center LLC employee, but defendants only
disclosed the coding error to the Securities and Exchange
Commission in March 2010.  The plaintiff and the class, however,
were not notified by AXA Rosenberg until April 15, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          David J. George, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
           & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
          John T. Long, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA LLP
          407 East Adams Street
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 544-1771


BDO USA: Austinite Pam Reed Files Class Action Over Stanford
------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Business Journal reports that Austinite Pam Reed and a
Houston resident are leading a class action lawsuit filed against
BDO USA LLP and its parent seeking more than $10 billion in
damages related to Stanford Financial Group.

The case -- filed May 26 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas -- claims Chicago-based accounting firm
BDO allegedly knew about Houston-based Stanford's fraudulent
deposit certificates, ignored them and continued to issue
unqualified audit opinions.

The other plaintiff in the case is Philip Wilkinson of Houston.

"BDO issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford clients'
annual financial statements even though BDO knew that its clients'
operations were substantially dependent - if not entirely
dependent -- upon the continuous sale of unregulated, fictitious
(Stanford International Bank Ltd.) CDs," the lawsuit states.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges
and seized Stanford's operations in February 2009, citing
allegations they were involved in a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Former CEO R. Allen Stanford is awaiting trial for his
involvement.

The lawsuit alleges that four members of BDO were part of a
Stanford Task Force created in the late 1990s to make changes to
Antigua's banking laws and regulatory institutions.

"A key initiative for the Stanford Task Force -- fully known to
BDO -- was to amend Antigua's Money Laundering (Prevention)
Act to ensure that 'fraud' and 'false accounting' did not
fall under the Act's prescribed list of violations," the
lawsuit states.


BEN & JERRY'S: Ice-Cream Buyers Can Pursue Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that two classes
of ice-cream buyers have standing to sue Ben & Jerry's and Breyers
for using "all natural" labels on ice cream made with synthetic
chemical processes, a federal judge ruled.

The consolidated class action alleges that the ice-cream makers
used alkalized cocoa powder to reduce acidity and give their ice
cream a rich, chocolate flavor.  The named plaintiffs say they
bought many pints of ice cream over the past several years but
would not have done so if they knew "that this ice cream contained
cocoa that was not 'natural,'" according to the ruling from U.S.
District Judge Phyllis Hamilton.

Though Ben & Jerry's and Breyers may ultimately prove that the
plaintiffs do not have any actionable claims, that does not
diminish their standing, Judge Hamilton wrote on May 26.

"If the plaintiffs did indeed purchase the ice cream based on the
representation that it was 'all natural' and if that
representation proves to be false, then they arguably have
suffered an injury in fact," according to the 22-page ruling.

Though the class has alleged enough facts to prove fraud, in that
they would not have purchased the ice cream had it been properly
labeled, any factual dispute over whether the companies knew they
were misleading customers should be an issue for trial,
Judge Hamilton added.

The judge also refused to find that federal law pre-empts the
class' labeling claims.

"While the provisions [of the federal law] apply to
representations about nutrients such as fiber and fat, and to
representations such as 'diet' as applied to soft drinks, there is
no indication of any regulation of the use of an adjective such as
'natural' on a food label," Judge Hamilton wrote.  "Accordingly,
the court finds that the claims are not preempted."

A copy of the Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motions to
Strike in Astiana v. Ben & Jerrys's Homemade, Inc. Case No. 10-
4387, and in Channee Thurston, et al. v. Conopco, Inc. Case No.
10-4937 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/ice%20cream.pdf


BURGER KING: Accessibility Suit vs. 86 Restaurants Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action suit styled Vallabhaparuparu v. Burger King
Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California), which alleges "accessibility" violations
against 86 Burger King restaurants, remains pending.

On September 10, 2008, the class action suit entitled Castenada v.
Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation, Case No. CV08-4262
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) was
filed.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger King restaurants
in California leased by the Company and operated by franchisees
violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law.
In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In its decision, the court
limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the
named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of
the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010, the
Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.  In February 2011, the Vallabhaparuparu lawsuit
was filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the lawsuit,
but the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on
July 23, 2002.  The Company is the parent of Burger King
Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates
fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger
King(R) brand.


BURGER KING: Agrees to Settle Consolidated NFA Class Suit for $0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings Inc. has negotiated a deal with the National
Franchisees Association, Inc., to resolve a consolidated
franchisees class suit which involves no monetary compensation,
according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. (NFA) and several
individual franchisees filed two class action lawsuits on
November 10, 2009, and June 15, 2010, respectively, claiming to
represent Burger King franchisees.  The lawsuits were styled
National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation, Case
No. 09-CV-23435 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida) and Family Dining, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Case
No. 10-CV-21964 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida).  The lawsuits seek a judicial declaration that the
franchise agreements between BKC and its franchisees do not
obligate the franchisees to comply with maximum price points set
by BKC for products on the BK Value Menu sold by the franchisees,
specifically the 1/4 lb. Double Cheeseburger and the Buck Double.
The Family Dining plaintiffs also seek monetary damages for
financial loss incurred by franchisees who were required to sell
those products for no more than $1.00.  In May 2010, the court
entered an order in the National Franchisee Association case
granting in part BKC's motion to dismiss.  The court held that BKC
had the authority under its franchise agreements to set maximum
prices but that, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the NFA had
asserted a "plausible" claim that BKC's decision may not have been
made in good faith.  Both cases were consolidated into a single
consolidated class action complaint which BKC moved to dismiss on
September 22, 2010.  On November 19, 2010, the court issued an
order granting BKC's motion to dismiss on all claims in the
consolidated complaint with prejudice.  On December 14, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its
decision, and on December 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  On February 2,
2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  On April 18, 2011, BKC and the NFA agreed to settle
the lawsuit.  The settlement does not include any financial
compensation to either side.

Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on
July 23, 2002.  The Company is the parent of Burger King
Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates
fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger
King(R) brand.


BURGER KING: Final Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set June 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida court is set to convene a final hearing on June 15,
2011, on the settlement reached in shareholder class action
lawsuits against Burger King Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 3, 2010, four purported class action complaints were
filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Miami-Dade, Florida,
captioned Darcy Newman v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 10-48422CA30, Belle Cohen v. David A. Brandon, et. al., Case
No. 10-48395CA32, Melissa Nemeth v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et.
al., Case No. 10-48424CA05 and Vijayalakshmi Venkataraman v. John
W. Chidsey, et. al., Case No. 10-48402CA13, by purported
shareholders of the Company, in connection with the tender offer
and the merger deal of the Company.  Each of the four complaints
(collectively, the "Florida Actions") names as defendants the
Company, each member of the Company's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants") and 3G Capital Partners, Ltd.  The suits
generally allege that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the proposed sale of the Company and that 3G Capital and the
Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.

On September 8, 2010, another putative shareholder class action
suit captioned Roberto S. Queiroz v. Burger King Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5808-VCP was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "First Delaware Action") against the Individual
Defendants, the Company, 3G Special Situations Fund II, L.P., 3G
Capital, Blue Acquisition Holding Corporation and Blue Acquisition
Sub, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder
value by entering into the proposed transaction via an unfair
process and at an unfair price, and that the merger agreement
contains provisions that unreasonably dissuade potential suitors
from making competing offers.  On September 27, 2010, another
putative shareholder class action suit captioned Robert
Debardelaben v. Burger King Holdings, Inc., et al, Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 5850-UA was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Individual Defendants.
Like the first Delaware Action, the Debardelaben complaint asserts
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the tender offer, and that the Company and 3G
Capital aided and abetted that breach.  This action also seeks
both monetary and injunctive relief.  On September 29, 2010, the
Delaware court entered an order consolidating the Debardelaben and
Queiroz actions ("Delaware Actions").

On December 30, 2010, a proposed settlement was reached with the
plaintiffs in the Florida Actions and Delaware Actions.  The
principal terms of the proposed settlement include additional
disclosures about the Merger that were provided to Burger King
shareholders in the Company's amended schedule 14D-9, dismissal of
the Florida and Delaware actions, mutual releases and the payment
of up to $1 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs'
counsel.

On March 16, 2011, the Florida court gave preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement.  The court has scheduled a hearing on
June 15, 2011, to determine whether to finally approve the
settlement.

Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on
July 23, 2002.  The Company is the parent of Burger King
Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates
fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger
King(R) brand.


C.R. ENGLAND: Concealed Material Data About "Driving Opportunity"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Roberts, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. C.R. England, Inc., et al, Case No.
11-cv-02586 (N.D. Calif. May 27, 2011), is brought on behalf of
individuals (the "Drivers") that defendants fraudulently induced
into purchasing a business opportunity to drive big rig trucks
(the "Driving Opportunity").

Mr. Roberts was a Driver from approximately September 2009 to
June 2010.

Defendants are affiliated transportation industry companies that
are headquartered at the same offices in Salt Lake City, Utah and
that have offices and operations in 10 California, Indiana and
elsewhere.  Defendants' customers include Wal-Mart and other
businesses that ship goods around the country via tractor-
trailers.  Defendants transport some customers' goods via company
employees and company-owned trucks but the majority of goods are
transported by Drivers that have purchased the Driving
Opportunity.

According to the Complaint, although the Driving Opportunity is a
franchise and/or business opportunity under federal, California,
Utah, and Indiana law, defendants have never complied with the
applicable registration, disclosure, and anti-fraud provisions of
those laws.  Defendants allegedly made uniform misrepresentations,
misleading statements, and concealed material information when
offering and selling the Driving Opportunity to the Drivers in
derogation of the applicable statutes and common law.

Mr. Roberts relates that defendants' conduct is a fraudulent
scheme targeting and injuring the Drivers.  Defendants defraud the
Drivers into paying for all the expenses of transporting goods
for defendants' customers by making uniform false and misleading
written and oral representations about the Driving Opportunity and
by concealing material facts.  The Drivers' expenses paid to
defendants include truck rental, gas, maintenance, computers, and
other expenses associated with the Driving Opportunity.
Defendants also retain all the money their customers pay for
transporting goods.

After paying such expenses, the Drivers had little or no
compensation or even owed defendants money despite the long hours
they worked as Drivers.  Thus, the Drivers were also damaged
because defendants defrauded them out of their labor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
          Peter C. Lagarias, Esq.)
          LAGARIAS & BOULTER L.L.P.
          1629 Fifth Avenue
          San Rafael, Ca 94901-1828
          Telephone: (415) 460-0100
          E-mail: rsb@lb-attorneys.com
                  pcl@lb-attorneys.com


CABLEWORX CABLING: Refuses to Pay $283,600 Worth of Materials
-------------------------------------------------------------
GraybaR Electric Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Cableworx Cabling & Maintenance
Corp., et al., Case No. 651474/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
May 27, 2011), seeks, in addition to the recovery of the monies
owed to Graybar from Cableworx, the recovery of lien law trust
funds pursuant to Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New
York, in connection with the materials supplied by GraybaR to
Cableworx.

Allegedly, the defendants: a) wrongfully diverted lien law trust
funds paid in respect of several of their construction projects in
New York, which funds should have been used to pay lien law trust
creditors such as GraybaR, and b) fraudulently deprived GraybaR of
the benefits of the New Jersey Construction Lien law statute.

The total principal amount due from Cableworx to GraybaR is
$283,636.02.  In addition to the principal indebtedness owed to
plaintiff, GraybaR rendered invoices to Cableworx for service
charges accrued on the principal indebtedness through Oct. 28,
2010, in the total amount of $59,644.18.

GraybaR Electric Company, Inc., is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the New York, maintaining a place
of business at 401 Franklin Avenue, in Garden City, New York.
GraybaR is in the business of, among other things, the sale of
data and electrical supplies and materials.

Cableworx Cabling and Maintenance Corp. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York, maintaining
a principal place of business at 104 West 27th Street, in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill Levi, Esq.
          TODD & LEVI, LLP
          444 Madison Avenue, Suite 1202
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-7400


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare Policies
------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims the Canadian government "deliberately planned the
eradication of the language, religion and culture" of native
Indian children and robbed them of their treaty rights through
child welfare policies which placed them in non-aboriginal foster
families for the past half-century.

Skogamhallait, also known as Sharon Russell, claims in B.C.
Supreme Court that the Canadian government passed the buck on
Indian child welfare services to the British Columbia government,
causing "ongoing harm to Indian children in care by not taking
steps to prevent them from losing their Aboriginal identity and
the opportunity to exercise their Aboriginal and treaty rights."

Ms. Russell is a member of the Gitsegukla Indian Band and the
Gitksan First Nation.  She says the Canadian government delegated
child welfare responsibilities to the British Columbia government
in 1962.

"As a result, Indian children were apprehended and removed from
their Aboriginal family and community and were placed in the care
of non-Indian and non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive homes where
they were systematically denied the opportunity to preserve their
Aboriginal identity," the complaint states.

Ms. Russell says the policy "continued the pursuit of Canada's
goal of complete integration and assimilation of Aboriginal
Children into mainstream Canadian society and the obliteration of
their traditional language, culture and religion."

Ms. Russell says she was taken from her family twice, once when
she was 7 and again when she was 9, and placed in two
non-Aboriginal families.  She returned to her family when she was
15, but says was not accepted into the community when she came
back.

Ms. Russell said she entered adulthood with a significantly
impaired knowledge and experience of what it meant to be Gitksan.
In her teens, Ms. Russell says, she struggled with alcohol and
drug addictions and made a number of suicide attempts.

Ms. Russell seeks class certification and damages for breach of
treaty rights and for the "widespread psychological, emotion and
cultural abuses of the plaintiff and class members."

"Canada deliberately planned the eradication of the language,
religion and culture of the plaintiff and class members," the
complaint states.  "Canada's actions were deliberate and malicious
and in the circumstances, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages are appropriate and necessary."

A copy of the Notice of Civil Claim in Skogamhallait v. The
Attorney General of Canada, Case No. 113566 (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/Aboriginal.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN LYONS
          Suite 1100
          1333 West Broadway
          Vancouver, BC
          Canada V6H 4C1
          Telephone: (604) 874-7171


COVENTRY HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., on May 31, disclosed that final court
approval has been received and all other contingencies have been
satisfied relating to the previously announced definitive
settlement agreement between First Health Group Corp., Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Coventry, and counsel representing the
provider class with respect to previously disclosed class action
litigation in Louisiana.  The class action litigation involved
claims of alleged violations of notice provisions of Louisiana's
Any Willing Provider Act in connection with provider services to
injured workers with workers' compensation claims, as described in
more detail in Coventry's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2010, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Coventry had accrued for the initial judgment of $262 million with
additional accruals for legal fees and interest related to this
matter.  In accordance with the settlement, First Health Group
Corp., Inc. will pay $150.5 million from an escrow fund which was
established during the first quarter of 2011.  As a result of
developments since the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, including the final court approval, Coventry
will record a favorable non-recurring pre-tax adjustment to
earnings of $159.3 million, or $0.68 per diluted share after tax,
in the second quarter of 2011.

Coventry Health Care -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com-- is a
diversified national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda,
Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental and workers' compensation services companies.  Coventry
provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care products
and services to a broad cross section of individuals, employer and
government-funded groups, government agencies, and other insurance
carriers and administrators.


CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $9.75MM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberDefender Corporation is awaiting court approval of a $9.75
million settlement to resolve a class suit related to its software
services, the Company disclosed in its May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 6, 2011, the Company and Edelson McGuire, LLC, a Chicago,
Illinois law firm, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which
is subject to court approval, to settle a class action that
includes claims allegedly arising out of the Company's design,
sales and marketing of its software products and services.   A
class action complaint and the Stipulation were filed in state
court in Cook County, Illinois, on May 6, 2011.  The Company
denies the allegations in the complaint and agreed to settle the
action solely to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation.

The Stipulation provides that any customer who can establish, to
the Company's satisfaction in accordance with the provisions in
the Stipulation, a purchase of the Company's software or services,
and who has not previously received a refund from the Company, is
entitled to a $10 refund in cash.  The total settlement fund will
be $9.75 million and will not exceed that amount in any event.
The Company will receive a credit for the lesser of: (i) $7
million; or (ii) 85% of the total of all refunds it makes to
customers during the period from September 1, 2010 through a date
which is 30 days after the entry of the final judgment in the
class action.  Although there can be no assurances, the Company
believes it will be entitled to the credit of $7 million.

The balance of the settlement fund, after deducting the $7 million
credit, will be $2.75 million, from which payments will be made
for: (i) claims that are approved in accordance with the
provisions of the Stipulation; (ii) the plaintiffs' attorneys' fee
award; (iii) a plaintiffs' incentive award of $3,000; and (iv) the
costs of the claims administration process, which will be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation.
The Company's insurance carrier under the applicable insurance
policy will contribute up to a maximum of $2 million to the
settlement, subject to the payment by the Company of the retention
(deductible) of $250,000.

Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes that the
insurance carrier's contribution will be sufficient to satisfy the
payments given the number of claims that the Company expects will
be filed, therefore no additional amount has been accrued by the
Company.  Although there can be no assurances, the Company
estimates that, even if all potential claimants filed claims that
were approved, the Company's total, maximum exposure under the
Stipulation would be approximately $750,000.

Finally, in addition to the payments, the Stipulation provides
that the Company will maintain certain additional disclosures
relating to its products and services in its Terms of Service and,
where applicable, its Privacy Policy.

CyberDefender Corporation (NASDAQ: CYDE) --
http://www.cyberdefender.com/-- provides Internet security
software, utilities and Live PC Support services that work
together to provide maximum safety for consumers in a digital
world.  CyberDefender develops and markets antispyware/antivirus
software and remote, live tech support services. In addition,
CyberDefender offers identity protection and computer optimization
services.  With millions of active users on its cloud-based
Collaborative Internet Security Network, CyberDefender leverages
the power of community to protect its customers from the rapidly
growing number of new online threats every year.  CyberDefender
products are fully compatible with Microsoft's XP, Vista, and 7
Operating systems.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com, inc., Walgreen Co. and Dover Subsidiary, Inc.,
reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and
dismissal, with prejudice, of all lawsuits filed in connection
with their proposed merger, according to the Company's May 27,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

drugstore.com, inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Walgreen Co. and Dover Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreens, pursuant to which Merger Sub
will merge with and into drugstore.com with drugstore.com
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreens.  On April 29,
2011, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement describing
the proposed merger with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Seven purported class action lawsuits have been filed against
drugstore.com, its directors, Walgreens, and in some cases, Merger
Sub, in connection with the merger: Grodko v. drugstore.com, inc.
et al., Case No. 6315-36696222, Halberstam v. drugstore.com, inc.
et al., Case No. 6328-36765633 and Chopp v. drugstore.com, inc. et
al., Case No. 6365-36992506, which were filed on March 25, 2011,
March 30, 2011 and April 12, 2011, respectively, in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware; and Hurlin v. drugstore.com,
inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-11261-6 SEA, Cohen v. drugstore.com,
Inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-11661-1 SEA, Crandall v. drugstore.com,
inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-12508-4 SEA and Powers v.
drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-12447-9 SEA, which were
filed on March 25, 2011, March 29, 2011, April 4, 2011 and April
4, 2011, respectively, in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, County of King.

On May 2, 2011, the Washington court entered an order
consolidating the Washington Lawsuits.  That same day, plaintiff
Nicholas Hurlin filed an Amended Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty in his Washington Lawsuit.  The Amended Complaint, similar to
the prior Washington complaints, generally alleges that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good
faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure.  The Amended Complaint
also contains new factual allegations concerning purportedly
deficient disclosures and material omissions in drugstore.com's
preliminary proxy filed on April 14, 2011.  The Amended Complaint,
similar to the prior complaints, also generally alleges that
drugstore.com and Walgreens aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

Also on May 2, 2011, plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits filed a
Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint, similar to the prior Delaware
complaints, generally alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, fair dealing, and
full disclosure.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint also contains
new factual allegations concerning purportedly deficient
disclosures and material omissions in drugstore.com's definitive
proxy filed on April 29, 2011.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint
also alleges that all defendants aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On May 27, 2011, the Company, Walgreens, Merger Sub, and the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits and the Washington Lawsuits
reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and
dismissal, with prejudice, of all lawsuits filed in connection
with the merger.  Pursuant to that agreement, the Company agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed
merger and filed a supplement to its definitive proxy statement on
May 27, 2011.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc., remains a defendant in the lawsuits
filed against pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws in the marketing of
pharmaceutical products, according to the Company's May 27, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2011.

The Company remains a defendant in actions filed in various
federal district courts alleging certain violations of the federal
anti-trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products.  In
each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical
manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and
conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products.
The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both individually
and, with respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek
injunctive relief and monetary damages.  The Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation ordered these actions coordinated (and,
with respect to those actions brought as class actions,
consolidated) in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name
Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation."

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated
federal class action (which proceeded to trial beginning in
September 1998), including Forest, were granted a directed verdict
by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case.
In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge held that no
reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs
and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence
as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent."  The Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting
of the directed verdict in the federal class case in the Company's
favor.

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in the Company's favor, the Company has secured the
voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all
of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected
to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were
included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal
of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in
various state courts.

The Company remains a defendant, together with other
manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included in
the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price
discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.  While no
discovery or other significant proceedings with respect to the
Company have been taken to date in respect of such claims, there
can be no assurance that the Company will not be required to
actively defend such claims or to pay substantial amounts to
dispose of such claims.  However, by way of a decision dated
January 25, 2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act cases
for certain of a smaller group of designated defendants whose
claims are being litigated on a test basis, granted summary
judgment to those designated defendants against a group of
designated plaintiffs due to those plaintiffs' failure to
demonstrate any antitrust injury.  Subsequently, the Court also
granted the designated defendants' motion for summary judgment
with respect to the designated plaintiffs' effort to obtain
injunctive relief.  The litigation is continuing with discovery
regarding the claims of other plaintiffs.

At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less
than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in "Celexa" Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit against Forest
Laboratories, Inc., relating to Celexa or Lexapro, according to
the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2011.

Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are
defendants in three federal actions filed on behalf of entities or
individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa or Lexapro for pediatric use, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multidistrict litigation
proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation."  These actions, two of
which are purported nationwide class actions, and one of which is
a purported California-wide class action, allege that FLI and FPI
marketed Celexa and/or Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and
paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa and Lexapro.  The complaints assert various similar claims,
including claims under a number of state consumer protection
statutes and state common laws.  Discovery currently is ongoing.

FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against these
cases.  At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome
is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole.

FLI and/or FPI are also named as defendants in two similar actions
pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those
contained in the federal actions.  The first action, filed on
July 22, 2009, under the caption "Crawford v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a
class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use.
Only FPI, which is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a
defendant.  The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use at any
time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who
do not have a claim for personal injury.  Discovery is currently
ongoing.  The second action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the
caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought
by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa or Lexapro.  The complaint asserts claims under the
Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and
seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  FLI and FPI intend
to continue to vigorously defend against both of these actions.

At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less
than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


GEROVA FIN'L: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Gerova Financial Group Ltd. are reminded of the
securities class action lawsuit filed against Gerova and certain
of its officers.  The class action (11-cv-3081), pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of a class of purchasers of Gerova securities
between January 8, 2010, and February 23, 2011.  The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Gerova securities during
the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until July 5, 2011, to seek appointment from the
Court.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq. at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including but
not limited to the fact that a substantial portion of the assets
it acquired pursuant to several transactions in January 2010 were
impaired, illiquid, and worth far less than their recorded value;
and that some of these acquisitions were with companies controlled
by or affiliated with Gerova's top officers.

On January 10, 2011, Dalrymple Finance LLC published a report
labeling Gerova as "a game of smoke and mirrors," and specifically
questioning the valuation of the assets acquired in January, 2010.
On this news, Gerova shares dropped $1.06 or nearly 4%, to close
at $26.98.

On February 10, 2011, after the market closed, the Company
announced the resignation of the Company's Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Directors.  On this news, Gerova
shares declined by $9.31 or 59% for four consecutive trading
sessions, to close at $6.39 on February 16, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, the NYSE halted the stock at $5.28 citing
the need for "additional information relative to operations,
management restructuring, and business plans."  Gerova's shares
were subsequently delisted.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, and
Washington, D.C., specializes in the areas of corporate,
securities, and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by the late
Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar,
the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class
actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty,
and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq.
         POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Accused of Making Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
Brett L. Lusskin, Jr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02585
(N.D. Calif. May 27, 2011), charges Google and its wholly owned
subsidiary Slide, Inc., of making unsolicited text message calls
to cellular phones.  The plaintiff brings suit under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., which
prohibits unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones.

Mr. Lusskin is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Florida.

Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, in Mountain
View, California.  Slide, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 301 Brannan St, 6th Floor, in San
Francisco, California.

On April 8, 2011, plaintiffs received text messages through
defendants' Disco service.  At no time did plaintiff consent to
the receipt of text messages from defendants.

In April 2011, defendants released a service called Disco,
available on the Internet at Disco.com.  Disco is marketed by
defendants as a "group texting" tool, allowing customers to
simultaneously send SMS text messages to large groups of people en
masse, using one common cellular telephone number provided by
defendants.

Allegedly, the software is designed so that "thousands of
consumers" receive text messages through defendants' Disco service
that they neither consented to nor wanted.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edeIson.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owns, Esq.
          2000 E. Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 106
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33306
          Telephone: (954) 306-8104


GOOGLE INC: Judge Approves Buzz Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
approved a class action settlement over Google's Buzz social
network, and awarded $500,000 to an Internet privacy group that
had previously been left out of the proposed deal.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint
with the Federal Trade Commission last year, saying Buzz
threatened the privacy of Gmail users.  Google settled with the
FTC this past March and agreed to independent privacy audits.

Google also agreed last year to resolve a separate proposed class
action lawsuit brought by a Gmail user.  Part of that deal
provided for more than $6 million to be distributed to groups
advocating for Internet privacy issues.

However, that list of groups did not include EPIC, which objected
to the proposed settlement.

EPIC and a handful of other groups said the majority of funds
would be allocated to groups that "receive support from Google for
lobbying, consulting, or similar services," according to a court
filing.

The plaintiffs called that argument meritless.  But on May 31,
U.S. District Judge James Ware wrote that there was no good cause
to exclude EPIC from the settlement.

"EPIC has demonstrated that it is a well-established and respected
organization within the field of Internet privacy," Judge Ware
wrote.

"We appreciate the court's recognition of EPIC's important work,"
said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.

Representatives for Google and the plaintiffs did not respond to a
request for comment.  EPIC had originally requested $1.75 million.

The settlement also includes money for the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the YMCA
of Greater Long Beach, among other groups.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is In Re Google Buzz User Privacy Litigation, 10-672.


HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Court OK of Interchange Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is still awaiting court approval of a
settlement entered into with plaintiffs in In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
the Company, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed
in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos Etc.
Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; Jethro
Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.; and American
Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.  Numerous other
complaints containing similar allegations were filed across the
country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.  These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the
Eastern District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint
was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009.  The
parties are engaged in discovery, motion practice and mediation.
On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other
defendants, including the Company, and certain affiliates of the
defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements
that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and
liabilities that the defendants, including the Company and its
affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these
actions.  The Agreements also cover any other potential or future
actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
with MDL 1720.  The Company continues to defend the claims in this
action vigorously and its entry into the Agreements in no way
serves as an admission as to the validity of the allegations in
the complaints.  Similarly, the Agreements have had no impact on
the Company's ability to quantify the potential impact from this
action, if any, and the Company is unable to do so at this time.


HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend "Jaffe" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc acquired Household International, Inc., the
predecessor to HSBC Finance Corporation, in March 2003.  HSBC
Finance Corporation is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC
North America Holdings Inc., which is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International and certain former officers were named as defendants
in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc.,
et al., No. 02 C 5893.  The complaint asserted claims under
Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household
International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11,
2002.  The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact
relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately
led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to
accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.  A jury trial
concluded on April 30, 2009 and the jury rendered a verdict on
May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to
Household International and three former officers.  A second phase
of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages, if
any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance.  On
November 22, 2010 the Court issued a ruling on the second phase of
the case. On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim
forms will be mailed to class members. Class members who file
claims will be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a question
that asks whether they would have purchased Household stock had
they known false and misleading statements inflated the stock
price.  As for damages, the Court set out a method for calculating
damages for class members who file claims.  The defendants filed a
motion for reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling.
On January 14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion:
slightly modifying the claim form; allowing defendants to take
certain discovery on the issue of reliance; and reserving on the
issue whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a
jury trial on the issues of reliance and damages.  On January 31,
2011, the Court issued another ruling further modifying the
decision on the scope of discovery.  Plaintiffs have mailed the
claim forms with the modified language and class members had until
May 24 to file claims.

Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual
determination of damages, including, but not limited to the number
of class members that may file valid claims, the number of claims
that can be substantiated by class members by providing adequate
documentation, the reduction of trading losses by any trading
gains made over the relevant period, the determination of reliance
by class members on the financial statements, and whether any
given class member was the beneficial owner of the shares, the
Company is unable at this time to reasonably estimate the amount
of any damages award, or range of possible awards, that could
arise as a result of the ruling and the ultimate resolution of
this matter. In filings with the Court, plaintiffs' lawyers have
estimated that damages could range "somewhere between $2.4-$3.2
billion to class members," before pre-judgment interest. Although
it is not reasonably possible to estimate the financial impact of
the ultimate resolution of this matter, the financial impact could
be material.

The date on which the court may enter a final judgment is not
known at this time. When a final judgment is entered by the
District Court, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal the
verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on its
discussions with outside counsel, the Company continues to believe
that neither Household nor its former officers committed or
engaged in any wrongdoing and the Company has meritorious grounds
for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case.

No further updates were reported in HSBC Finance Corporation's
May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation's subsidiaries are now facing eight class
action lawsuits challenging the marketing or administrative
practices of their debt cancellation or suspension products,
according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ("HSBC Bank Nevada") and HSBC
Card Services Inc.: Rivera et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al.
(D.N.J. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et
al. (E.D. Pa. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v. HSBC Bank
Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v. HSBC Bank
Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. 11-CV-00548); McKinney v. HSBC Card
Services et al. (S.D. III. 10-CV-00786); Chastain v. HSBC Bank
Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 13th Circuit)
(filed as a counterclaim to a pending collections action); Colton
et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (C.D. Ca. 11-CV-03742).
These actions principally allege that cardholders were enrolled in
debt cancellation or suspension products and challenge various
marketing or administrative practices relating to those products.
The plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust
enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and
deceptive acts and practices statutes. The Mitchell action was
dismissed by the plaintiff in March 2011. At this time, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any,
that might arise as a result of these actions and will continue to
defend the claims vigorously.


HSBC USA: Deal to Settle Interchange Fee Suit Pending Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement to settle a consolidated amended complaint over
interchange fees charged for credit card transactions is pending,
according to HSBC USA Inc.'s May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class
actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York:
Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No.
3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience Stores,
et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));
Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American Booksellers Asps' v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).  Numerous
other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC
entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Incorporated and other banks.  These actions
principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by
the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.  These suits have been
consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.  A
consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was
filed on January 29, 2009.  The parties are engaged in discovery,
motion practice and mediation.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard
Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank
USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements that provide for the
apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the
defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and its affiliates, may incur,
jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or
global settlement of one or all of these actions.  The Agreements
also cover any other potential or future actions that are
transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720.
The Company continues to defend the claims in this action
vigorously and its entry into the agreements in no way serves as
an admission as to the validity of the allegations in the
complaints. Similarly, the Agreements have had no impact on the
Company's ability to quantify the potential impact from this
action, if any, and it is unable to do so at this time.


HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a
lawsuit captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 650562/11), according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al.  (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order. Levin asserts claims for breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the
Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi-
district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the
case in New York state court on March 1, 2011. The action,
captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations
on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion,
unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts
and practices statute.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on May 2, 2011. At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a
result of this action and will defend the claims vigorously.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Injunction in "Foster" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina denied the request for preliminary injunction filed by
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit over the merger of
Inspire Pharmaceuticals Inc. with Merck & Co., Inc., and Monarch
Transaction Corp., according to Inspire's May 11, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Following Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s announcement that it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 5,
2011, with Merck & Co., Inc., and Monarch Transaction Corp., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck, a purported class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, against the Company, its Board of
Directors, Merck and Monarch under the caption Norris Foster, et
al. v. George Abercrombie, et al., No. 5:11-CV-00180.

On May 10, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction in connection with the purported class
action suit that would have delayed or prevented the proposed sale
of the Company and the tender offer in connection with the Merger
Agreement.

As a result of the Court's denial, the Company says there is no
pending litigation that would reasonably be expected to prevent
the consummation of the merger of Monarch with and into the
Company, subject to the satisfaction of the terms and conditions
set forth in the Merger Agreement.


INTERCLICK INC: Continues to Defend "Bose" Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
interclick, inc., continues to defend itself against a purported
class action over alleged computer use law violations, according
to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On or about December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Sonal Bose v. Interclick, Inc., Case No. 10 Civ. 9183-DAB
(S.D.N.Y.)) alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities
that plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use
laws.  The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and
seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution,
and reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees.  The plaintiff
also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action
certification.

interclick, inc., is a technology company providing solutions for
data-driven advertising.  Combining scalable media execution
capabilities with analytical expertise, interclick delivers
exceptional results for marketers.  The Company's proprietary Open
Segment Manager platform organizes and valuates billions of data
points daily to construct the most responsive digital audiences
for major digital marketers.  The Company generates revenue by
serving as a principal in transacting online display advertising
between agency clients and third party Web site
publishers.  Substantially all of the Company's revenues are
generated in the United States.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Arch Coal Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits filed in Delaware in
connection with its proposed merger with Arch Coal, Inc., and
Atlas Acquisition Corp., according to the Company's May 27, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 2, 2011, International Coal Group, Inc., Arch Coal, Inc.,
and Atlas Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Arch ("Merger Sub"), entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement
and upon the terms and conditions thereof, on May 16, 2011, Merger
Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per share,
for $14.60 per share in cash, without interest.

On May 9 and May 11, 2011, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of the Company,
respectively docketed as Kirby v. International Coal Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 6464 and Kramer v. Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., et al.,
Case No. 6470.  On May 19, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of Delaware purportedly on
behalf of a class of stockholders of the Company, docketed as
Isakov v. International Coal Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6505.
Each of the complaints names as defendants the Company, members of
the Company's Board of Directors, Arch and Merger Sub.  Each of
the complaints alleges, inter alia, that the members of the
Company Board breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
Company to its stockholders or engage in an appropriate sales
process in connection with the proposed transaction and that Arch
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach.  The Isakov
complaint further alleges that the members of the Company Board
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information in the Company's Schedule 14D-9 filed on May 16, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek relief that includes, inter alia, an injunction
prohibiting the proposed transaction, an accounting, and costs and
disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.

The defendants named in the Delaware Actions believe that the
Delaware Actions are entirely without merit, and that they have
valid defenses to all claims raised by the plaintiffs named in the
Delaware Actions.  Nevertheless, and despite their belief that
they ultimately would have prevailed in the defense of the
Delaware Plaintiffs' claims, to avoid the time and expense that
would be incurred by further litigation and the uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on May 26, 2011, the parties to the
Delaware Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein.

In connection with the MOU, Arch and Merger Sub agreed to reduce
the amount of the proposed transaction's termination fee by $10
million, from $115 million to $105 million, and the Company agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures in its Schedule 14D-9.
The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, the
execution of a formal stipulation of settlement and court
approval, as well as the consummation of the proposed transaction.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Class Suit by IBEW Union
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit in Nevada filed by a local union, according
to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2,
2011.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act against IGT and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and
October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price
through a series of materially false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. In
April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part
and denied in part. The Court found that the allegations
concerning statements about the seasonality of game play levels
and announcements of projects with Harrah's and City Center were
sufficient to state a claim.  Plaintiffs did not state a claim
based on the remaining statements about earnings, operating
expense, or forward-looking statements about play levels and
server-based technology. No pre-trial schedule has been set.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by participants in the
Company's employee pension plans, according to the Company's
May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The actions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified
damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the U.S. Securities and derivative lawsuits, and further
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan
Participants by failing to disclose material facts to Plan
Participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in
the interest of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan
assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company
stock. In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part.  No
pre-trial schedule has been set.


JANOME AMERICA: Recalls 600 Sewing Machines Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Janome America Inc., of Mahwah, New Jersey, announced a voluntary
recall of about 600 sewing machines.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The wires inside the sewing machine can short circuit, posing a
risk of fire.

Janome America knows of one report of a sewing machine catching
fire.  No injuries or property damage have been reported.

This recall involves the Elna eXcellence 740 sewing machine.  The
machine is white and navy with a digital touch panel.  "Elna" and
"eXcellence 740" are printed on the front of the machine.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11237.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and Taiwan, and
sold at sewing machine stores nationwide from September 2010
through April 2011 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the machine and
return it to the store where it was purchased for a free repair.
For additional information, contact Janome America at (800) 631-
0183 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.elnausa.com/


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Preliminary OK of "Cardenas" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the class
action lawsuit captioned Cardenas et. al. v. John B. Sanfilippo &
Son, Inc., according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 23, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement of the class action previously disclosed in the
periodic filings of John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., entitled
Cardenas et. al. v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.

Final approval of the proposed settlement is scheduled to occur in
the District Court on September 8, 2011.  Information regarding
the proposed settlement is set forth in a Notice of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement and Notice of Collective Action and
Proposed Settlement.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in
a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and alleges
violations of Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia and
California State Law in a class action.  The Lawsuit seeks back
payment for non-payment of wages (including overtime), interest,
liquidated damages, penalties and attorney's fees.  As used in the
Notice, the term "class members" refers to current and former JBSS
non-union, non-office, hourly employees of JBSS who worked for
JBSS from February 26, 2007 - February 25, 2011.

Specifically, the Class Representatives, Teresa Cardenas, Thomas
Young, Isaias Martinez, Jose Luis Vasquez, and Samuel Trinidad, on
behalf of all class members under the FLSA and State laws, allege
that John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. rounded employees' punch-in
and punch-out time incorrectly, which resulted in less time being
paid to affected employees and did not pay employees for all time
worked.  The lawsuit also claims that certain Illinois employees
should have been compensated for time spent donning and doffing
uniforms and related equipment and for related time by virtue of
the physical layout of the Elgin facility and local pay practices
and policies.  JBSS has denied and continues to deny the
allegations in the Lawsuit and contends that its policies and
practices regarding compensation were proper and in compliance
with the laws at all times.  JBSS wishes to settle this
litigation, however, to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation
but does not admit to any wrongdoing or liability.


KAHN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 35 Baby Hats Due to Asphyxiation Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 35 Beeni Baby Hats were voluntarily recalled by Kahn
Enterprises LLC, of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A baby can spit up during use, posing an asphyxiation hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled baby hats are made of cotton and spandex.  They have
two straps sewn to the sides and a removable plastic pacifier
holder.  The hat is available in sizes small, medium and large,
and in pink, blue, green, flower print, blue stripe and blue
print.  Model number 125867 is on a tag sewn into the back inner
rim of the cap.  A picture of the recalled products is available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11741.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Beeni Baby's Web site http://www.beeni.net/
from January 2009 through May 2011 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the hats and contact Kahn
Enterprises to receive a full refund.  Kahn Enterprises will
provide consumers with a postage paid label to return the product.
The firm is directly contacting consumers who purchased the
recalled baby hats.  For additional information, e-mail Kahn
Enterprises at info@beeni-kids.com, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.beeni.net/or call the firm collect at (612) 310-4053.


KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services Inc. is awaiting final court approval of an
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company, according to its May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2011.

The Company is the subject of two pending class action lawsuits.
The two lawsuits, Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc. and Kelly Home
Care Services, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles, and Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., pending in the
U.S. District Court Southern District of California, both involve
claims for monetary damages by current and former temporary
employees working in the State of California.

The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and to alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.  On April 30, 2007, the Court in the Fuller
case certified both plaintiff classes involved in the suit.  In
the third quarter of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for
its motions related to summary judgment on both certified claims.
On March 13, 2009, the Court granted Kelly's motion for
decertification of the classes.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review on April 3, 2009 requesting the decertification ruling be
overturned.  Plaintiffs' request was granted on May 17, 2010 and
the suit was recertified as a class action.  The Sullivan matter
relates to claims by temporary workers for compensation while
interviewing for assignments.  On April 27, 2010, the Court in the
Sullivan matter certified the lawsuit as a class action.  The
parties have submitted a proposed settlement to the Court for
final approval.


LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Sued for Failing to Comply with IWAA
----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Morris, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Lighthouse Financial Group of Illinois Inc., Case No.
2011-CH-19536 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 31, 2011), seeks
redress for the conduct of defendant in taking collection actions
prohibited by the Illinois Wage Assignment Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory
judgment that the arbitration clause that Lighthouse includes in
its loan agreements is unenforceable.  The arbitration clause
purports to require plaintiff to arbitrate any dispute he has with
defendant.

Mr. Morris is a resident of Cook County in Illinois.

Defendant Lighthouse Financial Group of Illinois, Inc., a Florida
corporation, is engaged in the consumer loan business, and
operates 3 loan offices in Illinois "from which it makes loans at
high rates of interest (over 100%)."

On Aug. 10, 2010, plaintiff borrowed $475 from defendant for
personal, family, or household purposes.  In connection with the
transaction, plaintiff executed a "Wage Assignment".

Allegedly, to enforce the wage assignment, Lighthouse served a
document on plaintiff's employer, Pitney Bowes Management
Services.  According to the Complaint, the document falsely
appears to emanate from the Circuit Court and is contrived to
convey the false impression that the Circuit Court has become
involved in collecting debt.  Although Lighthouse has not filed a
lawsuit against plaintiff, the employer believed that it had been
served with a wage garnishment document and notified plaintiff
that his wages were being garnished.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Catherine A. Ceko, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
           & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


LOGITECH INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Results
--------------------------------------------------
Logitech International S.A. is facing a class action lawsuit
relating to its disclosure that its results for fiscal year 2011
would fall below expectations, according to the Company's May 27,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech and certain of its officers.  This action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares
between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011.  The complaint
relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011 that its
results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.

The Company believes the lawsuit and claims are without merit, and
it intends to vigorously defend against them.  However, there can
be no assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any
judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial
condition, cash flows and results of operations.  The Company's
accruals for lawsuits and claims as of March 31, 2011, were not
material.


MEDCATH CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Knox-Keene Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
During October 2009, a purported class action law lawsuit was
filed by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a
consolidated subsidiary of MedCath Corporation.  In the complaint
the plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically
under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under
the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the
practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided
emergency services.  On November 24, 2010, the court granted the
Bakersfield Heart Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class
allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 27, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


NICOR INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Proposed AGL Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve
class action lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed
merger with AGL Resources Inc., according to the Company's May 27,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Nicor Inc. and the other
named defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division and
the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuit filed in
the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, both of which are related to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated as of December 6, 2010, by and among AGL Resources
Inc., Apollo Acquisition Corp., Ottawa Acquisition LLC and Nicor.

The memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, that
the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement
which provides for the release of all asserted claims.  The
asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court.  There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as
part of the memorandum of understanding, Nicor and AGL Resources
have agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed merger.

Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs
intend to seek, and the 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 or the timing of the
special meeting of Nicor shareholders scheduled for June 14, 2011,
in Chicago, Illinois or AGL Resources shareholders, scheduled for
June 14, 2011 in Atlanta, Georgia.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Can Amend Complaint vs. NMFC
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of the purported class action lawsuit against NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation in New York have been granted leave
to amend their complaint, according to NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s
May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.  Defendants in the case include
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company,
and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating
agencies.  The case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On June 16, 2009,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making
allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as
collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported
class members.  On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the Court granted, with
leave to amend, on March 31, 2011.

The Company says it cannot provide an estimate of the range of any
loss.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
case and expects to defend the case vigorously.


NUCOR CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers
in Illinois, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2011.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The cases are filed as class actions.  The plaintiffs
allege that from January 2005 to the present, eight steel
manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.  Although the Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend against them, it cannot at this time predict the
outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's
potential exposure.


NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Enforce Deal in Calif. Class Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied a motion filed by a group of purported class
members that seek enforcement of a settlement in a consolidated
lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation alleging product defects,
according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 1, 2011.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the Company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed
in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three
were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New
York, and in Federal Court in Texas.  Those three actions have
since been removed or transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
where all of the actions now are currently pending.  The various
lawsuits are titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA
Corp., Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
Hewlett Packard, Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett
Packard, Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v.
NVIDIA Corp., National Business Officers Association, Inc. v.
NVIDIA Corp., and West v. NVIDIA Corp.  The First Amended
Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008, which no longer asserted
claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints assert claims
for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Sections 17200 and 17500 of the
Business & Professions Code and other consumer protection statutes
under the laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and
strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases
related under the relevant local rules.  On December 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the aforementioned
consumer class action cases.  On February 26, 2009, the District
Court consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending
against Hewlett Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU
Litigation" and ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel
motions by March 2, 2009.  On March 2, 2009, several of the
parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs
addressing certain related issues.   On April 10, 2009, the
District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel.  On May 6,
2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint,
alleging claims for violations of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, Section 1792 of the Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code, Breach of the
Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other
states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on
that motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.  The Court gave
plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint.
On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  On
January 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.   In addition, on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all
people who purchased computers containing certain of the Company's
media and communications processor, or MCP, and graphics
processing unit, or GPU, products.  On May 3, 2010, the Company
filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.  On July 16,
2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court
advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement
in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The settlement in
principle was subject to certain approvals, including final
approval by the court.

As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other
estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements,
NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general
and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal
year 2011.  In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of
additional charges the Company recorded against cost of revenue
related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of
fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and
replacement costs related to the implementation of these
settlements.  On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release.  On
September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the
potential class members.  The Final Approval Hearing was held on
December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the
settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections.  In
January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the
Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On February 28, 2011, a group of purported class members filed a
motion with the District Court purporting to seek enforcement of
the settlement.  The Motion claimed that NVIDIA was not properly
complying with its obligations under the settlement in connection
with the remedies provided to purchasers of Hewlett-Packard
computers included in the settlement.  On March 4, 2011, NVIDIA
and Class Counsel at Milberg LLP filed oppositions to the Motion.
The Court held a hearing on March 28, 2011, and denied the Motion
on May 2, 2011.


NVIDIA CORP: Hearing Set for July 28 on Motion to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is currently scheduled for July 28, 2011, to consider
NVIDIA Corporation's motion to dismiss a second consolidated
amended complaint in the consolidated securities litigation
against the Company, according to its May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2011.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the Company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the Company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of the Company's previous generation media and
communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or
GPU, products and that the Company was revising financial guidance
for the Company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions
purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and
assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated
under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.  On
February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On February 19, 2009, co-Lead
Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the
District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of
Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware
granted the stay.  On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of
one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for
further proceedings.  On December 8, 2009, the District Court
appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead
counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010, and a
hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg.  On
October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  On December 2, 2010, co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The
Company moved to dismiss on February 14, 2011, and a hearing on
the motion is currently scheduled for July 28, 2011.


OCLARO INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order granting the global settlement in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against Oclaro, Inc., remain
pending, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 2, 2011.

On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class
actions was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against New Focus, Inc., now known
as Oclaro Photonics, Inc., certain of its officers and directors,
and certain underwriters for New Focus' initial and secondary
public offerings.  A consolidated amended class action complaint,
captioned In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20, 2002.  The
complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in New Focus' initial public offering and seeks unspecified
damages for claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 17, 2000 to
December 6, 2000.

The lawsuit against New Focus is coordinated for pretrial
proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging
underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions
against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology
Ltd. and Avanex Corporation, now known as Oclaro (North America),
Inc., and certain of each entity's respective officers and
directors, and certain of the underwriters of their public
offerings.  In October 2002, the claims against the directors and
officers of New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex were
dismissed, without prejudice, subject to the directors' and
officers' execution of tolling agreements.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a
settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement.
Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of the
settlement share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex, and New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex will bear no
financial liability. New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as
well as the officer and director defendants who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, will
receive complete dismissals from the case.  Certain objectors have
appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  If for any reason the settlement does not
become effective, the Company believes that Bookham Technology,
New Focus and Avanex have meritorious defenses to the claims and
therefore believe that such claims will not have a material effect
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


PETSMART INC: Suits Over 2007 Pet Food Recalls Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey reconfirmed
on remand the settlement in a multidistrict proceeding captioned
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation; thus, concluding the
lawsuits with no material impact on PetSmart Inc.'s financial
statements, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2011.

Beginning in March 2007, the Company was named as a party in
lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several
manufacturers.  The plaintiffs sued the major pet food
manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered
injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly
contaminated pet food and pet snack products.  The lawsuits are:

   * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
     3/23/07);

   * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07);

   * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07);

   * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA
     (filed 4/10/07);

   * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07);

   * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07);

   * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
     Canada (filed 7/11/07);

   * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario Superior
     Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07);

   * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland
     and Labrador (filed 9/5/07);

   * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
     Columbia (filed 3/23/07);

   * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
     (filed 3/30/07); and

   * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice (filed 3/28/07).

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil
No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for
court approval.  On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court
approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final
approval on November 3, 2008.  No appeals were filed in Canada and
although an appeal of the U.S. settlement was filed in 2009, on
April 5, 2011, the District Court reconfirmed on remand the
settlement in its entirety, thus, concluding these cases with no
material impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit in Kansas Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Postrock Energy Corporation continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by royalty owners in Kansas.

The Company has been named defendant in a putative class action,
brought on behalf of all royalty owners in the Kansas portion of
the Cherokee Basin.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
properly make royalty payments by, among other things, paying
royalties based on sale volumes rather than wellhead volumes, by
allocating expenses in excess of actual costs, by improperly
allocating production costs and marketing costs to royalty owners,
and by failing to pay interest on royalty payments made late.  The
Company has filed an answer, denying plaintiffs' claims.  No class
certification hearing has yet been scheduled.  The parties have
participated in multiple mediation sessions with the most recent
in January 2011 and continue to engage in settlement discussions.
The parties have agreed to a period of limited discovery with
another mediation to occur thereafter.  If the matter cannot be
resolved at that time, the case will proceed with general
discovery, a class certification hearing, and a trial on the
merits.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

PostRock Energy Corporation is an independent oil and gas company
engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production
and gathering of crude oil and natural gas.  It manages its
business in two segments, production and pipeline.  Its production
segment is focused in the Cherokee Basin, a 15-county region in
southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma.  It also has minor
oil producing properties in Oklahoma and gas producing properties
in the Appalachia Basin.  The pipeline segment consists of a 1,120
mile interstate natural gas pipeline, which transports natural gas
from northern Oklahoma and western Kansas to Wichita and Kansas
City.  PostRock was formed in 2009 to combine its predecessor
entities, Quest Resource Corporation, Quest Energy Partners, L.P.
and Quest Midstream Partners, L.P. into a single company.  In
March 2010, it completed the recombination of these entities.


PRUDENTIAL PLC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Prudential Public Limited Company's business unit, Jackson
National Life Insurance Company, continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 11,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Jackson is involved as a defendant in class action and other
litigation substantially similar to class action and other
litigation pending against many life insurance companies that
allege misconduct in the sale and administration of insurance
products.  Jackson generally accrues a liability for legal
contingencies with respect to pending litigation once management
determines that the contingency is probable and estimable.
Accordingly, at April 15, 2011, Jackson had recorded an accrual of
$29 million for class action litigation.  Management, based on
developments to date, believes that the ultimate disposition of
the litigation is not likely to have a material impact on
Jackson's financial condition or results of operations.


QANTAS: Settles Class Action Over Fuel Surcharge for AU$2.1 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jones, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Qantas will
pay approximately AU$2.1 million to more than 200 travel agents as
the four-and-a-half-year fuel surcharge class action against
Qantas concluded on May 30.

The money is expected to be paid to retailers in the next month.

Steven Lewis, from law firm Slater and Gordon which has
represented agents since filing the action in December 2006,
heralded the end of the Qantas action, describing it as a
"breakthrough win' for travel agents.

Not only has it resulted in agents being awarded back paid
commission on the fuel levy, but it prompted many airlines,
including Qantas, to begin paying commission on surcharges, he
said.

"It's a good outcome that has past and future benefits," Mr. Lewis
told Travel Today.  "It's a good outcome for those agents who
stuck through the whole process, but all travel agents, including
the multiples who opted out of the class action, have got the
benefit of the judgment because they are all getting commission on
fuel surcharges going forward."

He added that the AU$2.1 million, an amount reached after
painstaking sales analysis, should be distributed before the end
of the financial year, at the end of June.

Mr. Lewis estimated that around 220 agents who remained part of
the class action actually made a claim against Qantas and will
receive a share of the money.

While the case against the flying kangaroo is at an end --
although the amount Qantas must pay in costs has yet to be
finalized -- it is not the end of the saga.

Attention will now switch to four other carriers named in the
original action; Air New Zealand, Cathay Pacific, British Airways
and Singapore Airlines.

Those who didn't make a claim against Qantas are still able to
make claims against the four other airlines.

No date has yet been fixed for a hearing into the remaining cases.


SANDISK CORP: Conference in Indirect Purchasers' Suit Set June 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference is scheduled for June 23, 2011, in
the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against SanDisk
Corporation by indirect purchaser plaintiffs, according to the
Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the Northern District of California, in eight purported
class action complaints.  On February 7, 2008, all of the civil
complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of
direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the
Northern District of California in a purported class action
captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No.
C07-0086.  Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash
memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an
injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of
profits.  The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, the Court denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended
Complaint to substitute certain class representatives.  On
April 5, 2011, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and
on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule
23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit to request permission to
appeal that decision.  A settlement conference with the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs was scheduled for May 13, 2011 and a case
management conference is scheduled for June 23, 2011.


SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear "Ritz" Class Certification on Nov. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will convene a hearing on November 15, 2011, to
consider the motion for class certification in the class action
lawsuit filed against SanDisk Corporation by Ritz Camera & Image,
LLC, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 3, 2011.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for
flash memory products.  The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v.
SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv-
02787-HRL, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present.  The
Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained
a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.  On February 24, 2011, the Court issued an
Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a
defendant.  The Company filed a motion requesting that the Court
certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of its
Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's
lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.  A
hearing on that motion was scheduled for May 6, 2011.  The Company
answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz's
allegations of wrongdoing.  Discovery is just beginning and under
the current schedule a class certification hearing is scheduled
for November 15, 2011, and trial is scheduled for August 20, 2012.


SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving the settlement in the
consolidated lawsuit against SciQuest, Inc., remain pending,
according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from its December 1999 initial public offering.  The complaints
alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used in the
Company's initial public offering contained material misstatements
or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation practices and
compensation and that the underwriters manipulated the aftermarket
for the Company's stock.  These complaints were consolidated along
with similar complaints filed against over 300 other issuers in
connection with their initial public offerings.  After several
years of litigation and appeals related to the sufficiency of the
pleadings and class certification, the parties agreed to a
settlement of the entire litigation, which was approved by the
Court on October 5, 2009.  Notices of appeal to the Court's order
have been filed by various appellants.

The Company has not incurred significant costs to date in
connection with its defense of these claims since this litigation
is covered by its insurance policy.  The Company believes it has
sufficient coverage under its insurance policy to cover its
obligations under the settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the
Company believes the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have an impact on its financial position and, therefore, it has
not accrued a contingent liability as of March 31, 2011 or
December 31, 2010 related to this litigation.


ST. JUDE: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is still defending itself against class
action lawsuits filed in Ontario and British Columbia, according
to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2,
2011.

The Company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario and
one individual case in British Columbia by the Provincial health
insurer. In Ontario, a class action case involving Silzone
patients has been certified, and the trial on common class issues
began in February 2010. The testimony and evidence submissions for
this trial were completed in March 2011, and closing briefing and
argument is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 2011.
Depending on the Court's ruling in this common issues trial, there
may be further proceedings, including appeal, in the future. A
second case seeking class action status in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario class action. The
complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to 2.0 billion
Canadian Dollars (the equivalent of $2.1 billion at April 2,
2011). Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount
ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to
the amount claimed. The British Columbia Provincial health insurer
has a lawsuit seeking to recover the cost of insured services
furnished or to be furnished to class members in the British
Columbia class action resolved in 2010, and that lawsuit remains
pending in the British Columbia court.


ST. JUDE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its request
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and
certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The
lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for the
first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary
earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks
unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees,
alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not
receiving anticipated orders for CRM devices. Class members allege
that the Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in
the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the claims asserted in this lawsuit. In October 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was heard by the
district court in April 2011.


ST. JUDE: Court Approval of "AGA Medical" Suits Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is awaiting execution and court approval
of a stipulation of settlement pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs of two putative class action
lawsuits related to its acquisition of AGA Medical, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2011.

In connection with the acquisition of AGA Medical Inc., the
Company, in addition to AGA Medical and other defendants, has been
named as a defendant in two putative stockholder class action
complaints, one filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court of
Minnesota and the other filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
both in October 2010. The plaintiffs in the complaints allege,
among other claims, that AGA Medical's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to AGA Medical's stockholders by accepting an
inadequate price, failing to make full disclosure and utilizing
unreasonable deal protection devices and further alleges that AGA
Medical and the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the transaction, in addition to unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, other fees and costs and
other relief. The acquisition of AGA Medical was completed on
November 18, 2010 and the parties to this action entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) in November 2010 to settle the
litigation, the amount of which was not material. The settlement
contemplated by the MOU is subject to several conditions,
including the negotiation and execution of a stipulation of
settlement and the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery.


STATER BROS: "O'Connor" Suit Settlement Amount Recorded
-------------------------------------------------------
In December 2008, an action by Dennis M. O'Connor, et al. was
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Stater Bros.
Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary Santee Dairies, Inc., dba Heartland
Farms (now SBM Dairies, Inc.) seeking individual and potential
class action monetary damages for time spent by non-exempt hourly
paid employees for changing into and out of sanitary uniforms. On
September 23, 2010, following mediation the case was settled.
Under the settlement agreement, the settlement amount will be paid
pursuant to procedures for filing and approval of claims for
members of the certified class with a portion of any unclaimed
amounts returned to SBM Dairies, Inc. The full settlement amount
has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 11, 2011, filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 27, 2011.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries are the largest
privately owned supermarket chain in Southern California.


STERIS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Winter Haven Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a lawsuit filed by Winter Haven LLC, according to the Company's
May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that
claims to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS,
Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS
Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio).  The complaint
alleges statutory violations, breaches of various warranties,
negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff
seeks class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable
relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order
requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the
product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action.

On February 7, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement in which it agreed, among other things, to provide
various categories of economic relief for members of the
settlement class and not object to plaintiff's counsel's
application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a
specified amount.  The settlement has been preliminarily approved
by the court.  Both certification of a settlement class and final
approval of the settlement require approval of the court and
satisfaction of certain other conditions.

The Company says there is no assurance that the court will take
such actions, that such conditions will be satisfied, or that this
matter will be resolved, or be resolved consistent with the terms
and conditions of such settlement agreement.  During the third
quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recorded in operating expenses
a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796 related to the proposed
settlement of these proceedings.  The assumptions regarding the
amount of this charge include, among others, the portion of class
members participating in the settlement and their choice of the
categories of economic relief available for such members.  These
assumptions may be incorrect and the costs of the settlement may
be higher or lower than the charge recorded.  The actual
settlement could be as low as $7,000 and as high as $22,000
depending on the options selected by the class members.

This putative class action or other civil, criminal, regulatory or
other proceedings involving the Company's SYSTEM 1, SYSTEM 1E, EPS
System, or other products or services could possibly result in
judgments, settlements or administrative or judicial decrees
requiring the Company, among other actions, to pay damages or
fines or effect recalls, or be subject to other governmental,
Customer or other third party claims or remedies, which could
materially affect the Company's business, performance, prospects,
value, financial condition, and results of operations.


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class suit brought by two franchisees against Tim
Hortons Inc. remains pending before a Canadian court, according to
the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3,
2011.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods
Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking
system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability.  The claim, which seeks class action
certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners, asserts
damages of approximately $1.95 billion.  Those damages are claimed
based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and
price maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of the putative class in May of 2009, and the
Company filed its responding materials as well as a motion for
summary judgment in November of 2009.  The two motions are
scheduled to be heard together in August 2011.  The Company
continues to believe the claim is without merit and will not be
successful, and the Company intends to oppose the certification
motion and defend the claim vigorously.  However, there can be no
assurance that the outcome of the claim will be favourable to the
Company or that it will not have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial position or liquidity in the event that the
ultimate determinations by the Court and/or appellate court are
not in accordance with the Company's evaluation of this claim.

Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://www.timhortons.com/-- is a Canadian
coffee shop known for its coffee and doughnuts. It was founded in
1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by Canadian hockey player Tim Horton
and Jim Charade, after an initial venture in hamburger
restaurants.


TMX FINANCE: Expects Class Settlement Administration to Begin July
------------------------------------------------------------------
TMX Finance LLC expects class settlement administration to begin
in the next 60 days in connection with the class action lawsuit
commenced by Reginald Dwight, according to the Company's May 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 6, 2004, Reginald Dwight filed a class action lawsuit
titled Reginald Dwight, et al v. TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc., in
the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, against the
Company's subsidiary, TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc., or "TMT."  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that TMT entered into loan
agreements which contained interest rates in excess of the maximum
rate allowed under Tennessee law.  The plaintiffs sought damages
allowed under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act as well as
punitive damages.  TMT denied all of the material allegations in
the action.  The parties have agreed to settle this action for
$93,000, and on April 12, 2010, the parties notified the
bankruptcy court of their agreement to settle this action.  The
action has been remanded to state court, and the parties expect
class settlement administration to begin in the next 60 days.


TMX FINANCE: Faces Suit in Missouri for Not Paying Overtime Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
TMX Finance LLC's subsidiary, TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., is
facing a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Missouri, alleging failure to pay certain
employees overtime compensation, according to the Company's
May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 10, 2011, Mignon Norfolk filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri,
against the Company's subsidiary, TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., or
"TMM," and a TMM District Manager.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that TMM failed to pay certain employees overtime
compensation as required by Missouri law.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, a judgment for an amount equal to plaintiff's
unpaid compensation, as well as liquidated damages.

The Company says the litigation is currently in its very early
stages, and it is too early to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or the ultimate liability, if any, resulting
from this action.


TWILIO INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Message Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Glauser, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Twilio, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-cv-02584 (N.D. Calif.
May 27, 2011), is a class action complaint against defendants
Twilio, Inc., and GroupMe, Inc., seeking to stop defendants'
practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.  Plaintiff brings suit under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., which prohibits
unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones.

Mr. Glauser is a natural person and citizen of the state of
Virginia.

Twilio, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
located at 548 Market St., in San Francisco, Calif.

GroupMe, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of
business located at 26 W 17th St., in New York City.

Plaintiff relates that at no time did he consent to the receipt of
the text messages or any other such wireless spam text messages
transmitted by and through defendants.

On April 23, 2011, plaintiff received a text call from defendants.
The text message was not initiated or consented to by plaintiff.
Almost immediately after receiving this text message, plaintiff
received a second message, advertising GroupMe's mobile
application.

A copy of the Complaint in Glauser v. Twilio, Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-02584 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edeIson.com


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Hospital Services, Inc., is awaiting court approval of
the settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuit In re
Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, according to the
Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc. or Sunrise Merger Sub, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Emergent Group Inc., pursuant to
which the Company and Sunrise Merger Sub commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of Emergent
Group's common stock at a purchase price of $8.46 per share in
cash, followed by a merger of Sunrise Merger Sub with and into
Emergent Group with Emergent Group surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company. The Merger was completed on April 1,
2011. Three putative shareholder class action complaints
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
were filed on behalf of three separate plaintiffs in the Superior
Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles
against Emergent Group, UHS, Sunrise Merger Sub and the individual
members of the Emergent Group Board. One was filed on February 22,
2011 by Brian McManus, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, a second was filed on February 28, 2011 by
Bryan Lamb, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and the third was filed on March 2, 2011 by Leena Dave,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Each
complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Emergent Group Board breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
public shareholders of Emergent Group by attempting to sell
Emergent Group by means of an unfair process with preclusive deal
protection devices at an unfair price of $8.46 in cash per Share
and by entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the Offer and
the proposed Merger, engaging in self dealing and failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Emergent Group to its public
shareholders. The complaints further allege that Emergent Group,
UHS and Sunrise Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. In addition, the complaints allege that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restricted Emergent
Group's ability to negotiate with rival bidders. The complaints
sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger and other
forms of equitable relief.

On March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
lawsuits for all purposes, and renamed the consolidated lawsuits
In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation.  On March 24,
2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the
consolidated lawsuits was agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. While the Defendants deny the allegations made in the
complaints, they agreed to enter into the MOU to avoid the costs
and disruptions of any further litigation and to permit the timely
consummation of the Offer and the Merger. The MOU, among other
things, provides that Emergent Group will amend its Schedule 14D-9
to include certain supplemental disclosures and that the final
settlement agreement concerning the action will require the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants to seek an order enjoining all
proceedings in connection with the consolidated lawsuits and any
additional actions alleging claims that are released pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the MOU provides that the
Settlement Agreement will include a release by the Plaintiffs and
the settlement class in favor of the Defendants and their related
parties from any claims that arose pursuant to or are related to
the Offer or the Merger. The Defendants have agreed that Emergent
Group or its successor or their respective insurers will pay the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses as are awarded by the
court not to exceed $225,000, subject to court approval of the
Settlement Agreement and the consummation of the Offer and the
Merger.  The Defendants deny all liability with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits, and
specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was
required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
However, the Defendants considered it desirable that the
consolidated lawsuits be settled primarily to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve all of the
claims that were or could have been brought in the consolidated
lawsuits being settled. In addition, Emergent Group desired to
provide additional information to its stockholders at a time and
in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Offer or the
Merger.

Universal Hospital Services, Inc., is a nationwide provider of
medical equipment management and service solutions to the United
States health care industry.


VERTRUE LLC: Settles Class Action over Membership Programs
----------------------------------------------------------
The Garden City Group, Inc., on May 31, disclosed that a proposed
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming
that Vertrue LLC and Adaptive Marketing LLC violated the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, when telemarketers enrolled
consumers in Adaptive membership programs, and Adaptive charged
the consumers' debit cards without first obtaining and providing
the consumers with copies of their signed written authorization.
Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and the Court has
not decided who is right or wrong.

Some of Adaptive's membership programs include: 24 Protect Plus,
At Home Rewards, Connections, Galleria USA, Home Works, Passport
to Fun, PremierHealth Plus, Privacy Plus, Shopping Essentials,
Today's Escapes, and Value Max.  For a complete list, visit:
http://www.debitcardsettlement.com

You are included in the settlement class if you were enrolled in
one or more of Adaptive's membership programs before January 1,
2007, during a telemarketing call, and membership fees were
charged to your debit card for the first time on or after
March 14, 2005.

If you are included in this settlement class, your legal rights
are affected.  You have a choice to either complete a Claim Form
to receive the settlement benefit, or, if you do not want to be
bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself.  If you take
no action, you will not receive a cash settlement benefit and you
will give up your right to sue Defendants for any alleged
violation of the EFTA.

If you complete the Claim Form and your claim is deemed valid, you
are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $150 for each
membership program charged to your debit card during the relevant
timeframe without your prior signed written authorization.  If the
total value of valid claims submitted exceeds the Maximum
Aggregate Settlement Amount of approximately $300,000, each class
member's actual settlement payment will be reduced
proportionately.

To submit a Claim Form, visit www.debitcardsettlement.com or call
the toll-free number to get one.  Claim Forms must be postmarked
by December 31, 2011, and must be deemed valid by the Claims
Administrator in order to qualify for cash payment.

If you are a class member and do not want to be legally bound by
the settlement, you must exclude yourself by August 8, 2011.  By
excluding yourself you will maintain your right to sue Defendants
for the EFTA claims covered by the settlement, but you will not be
eligible for a cash payment.  The full Notice on the Web site
describes how to exclude yourself.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Wike v. Vertrue, Inc.
et al., No. 3:06-0204, to consider whether to approve the
settlement, including the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
to the lawyers who filed this class action, and a service payment
to the class representative.  The hearing will be held in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on September 16, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., Central time.

If you stay in the settlement, you may also write to the Court to
comment in favor of, or in opposition to, the settlement by
August 8, 2011.  You may appear at the hearing, but do not have
to.  Please consult the full Notice for more information.

You can obtain a copy of the full Notice, which explains your
rights and how to obtain settlement benefits in more detail at
http://www.debitcardsettlement.comor, for additional information,
contact the Claims Administrator at: Membership Program Debit Card
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9723,
Dublin, OH 43017- 5623 or Toll Free: 1-877-790-8171.


WONDER AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, on June 1, disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Wonder Auto
Technology, Inc.

On February 23, 2011, Wonder Auto Technology, Inc., disclosed that
its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2008,
and 2009, as well as the financial statements included in its
Quarterly Reports for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and
September 30 during each of the years 2008 and 2009 should no
longer be relied upon due to a cutoff error regarding timing of
revenue in such periods.  As a result, on March 17, 2011, Wonder
Auto notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that it would
be unable to timely file its 2010 Annual Report.

On May 6, 2011, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted trading in Wonder
Auto's common stock.  On May 12, 2011, Wonder Auto issued a press
release stating that the Audit Committee was investigating certain
investment and acquisition transactions.

Trading in Wonder Auto's stock continues to be halted pending
Wonder Auto providing a satisfactory plan of compliance with the
NASDAQ listing rules.  A class action has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
claims on behalf of persons who purchased Wonder Auto securities
from May 14, 2008, through May 6, 2011, for violations of the
federal securities laws.

IF YOU PURCHASED WONDER AUTO COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 14, 2008
THROUGH MAY 6, 2011 AND YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF IN
THIS ACTION, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO LATER THAN AUGUST 1, 2011.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS MAY MOVE THE COURT TO SERVE AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF THROUGH COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE, OR MAY CHOOSE TO
DO NOTHING AND REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential
class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          Ximena Skovron, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Toll Free: (800) 440-8986
          E-mail: info@aftlaw.com
                  xskovron@aftlaw.com

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in
securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among
the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved
by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional
Shareholder Services.  In addition, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP has extensive experience litigating federal securities law
claims involving Chinese companies and employs attorneys fluent in
Mandarin Chinese.


                             *********

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  * * *