CAR_Public/110607.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 111

                             Headlines

ABN AMRO: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Mortgage Penalties
AMERICAN HOME: Georgia Appeals Court Overturns $459MM Judgment
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Litigation
APOLLO GLOBAL: Discovery in Mass. Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for July 20
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Sanctions in Fla.
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Suit Pending
BAPTIST HEALTH: Certification of Medical Charges Suit Affirmed
CANADIAN RECORD LABELS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Defends Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
CHICAGO, IL: Fire Dep't Applicants' Suit Is Timely, 7th Cir. Says
CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Actions
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend North Carolina Suit

COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend California Suit
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Israel
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: N.J. Court Dismissed Class Suit vs. Ulticom
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: $112.5MM Settlement Balance Due Nov. 15
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Accrues $550,000 in "Goodman" Suit Settlement

ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Awaits Court Okay of Class Suit Settlement
EQT PRODUCTION: Responds to Claims Over Split Agreements
FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit
GAMING PARTNERS: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kaplan" Suit
GEORGIA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Immigration Law

INSWEB CORP: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Merger-Related Suits Still Pending in S.C.
IPAYMENT INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit Is June 29
IPAYMENT INC: Has Until June 20 to Seek Dismissal of Vericomm Suit
JP MORGAN: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit Over Check Charges

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Signs MOU to Settle Delaware Suits vs. Merger
KPMG LLP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York
LASER AMUSEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Post ATM Fee Notice
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Says Rating Agencies Equally to Blame in Suit
MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Plaintiffs Appeal Class Decertification Order

MEDIACOM LLC: Hearing to Review MOU in Going Private Suits Held
MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Still Defends Class Suit in New York
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in Calif.
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit in Calif. For Deceptive Practices

ORTHOVITA INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Pa. Suit Claims
PEET'S COFFEE: Continues to Defend Wage Violation Suit in Calif.
PFIZER INC: Awaits Court Approval of King-Related Suit Settlement
PFIZER INC: High Court Denies Writ of Certiorari in Pharmacia Suit
PFIZER INC: Calif. Court Certifies Hormone-Replacement Class Suit

PLANTRONICS INC: Appeal in Bluetooth Headset Suit Still Pending
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Loan Note Buyers' Suit
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
REHABCARE GROUP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Kindred Merger Suit
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT JUICE: June 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

SUNOPTA INC: "Vargas" Suit Settlement Terms Yet To Be Finalized
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Amended Class Action Complaint in Calif.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Driving Academy Suits
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Class Suit Remains Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Class Suit Remains Stayed
SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
TASTY BAKING: Enters Into MOU in Merger-Related Suits in Pa.
TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Philips" Suit

TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Outcome of Motions to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
UNITED STATES: Williamtown RAAF Base to Face Class Action
VERTRO INC: Appeal From Fraud Suit's Final Judgment Still Pending
WAL-MART: Judge Sells Shares to Take Part in Class Action
WAL-MART: Law Firms File Class Action Over Gift Receipt Policy

WILMINGTON TRUST: Settlement Still Subject to Discovery & Approval
WILMINGTON TRUST: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate Suits
WOODSTOCK PERCUSSION: Recalls 10,100 Musical Shakers
WVS FINANCIAL: Final Hearing on Class Settlement Set for June 16
YONGYE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

ZYNEX INC: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Colorado




                             *********

ABN AMRO: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Mortgage Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that certifying a class action often complicates a simple matter,
but Madison County Associate Judge Clarence Harrison certified one
to simplify a complex matter.

He ruled in April that Cassandra Williams, former owner of a home
in Granite City, could represent a national class suing mortgage
company ABN AMRO.

Ms. Williams, a client of Stephen Tillery, claims the company
charged excessive penalties on partial payments.

Judge Harrison found he should focus on whether a 5% penalty
applied to the full amount of the monthly note or only the unpaid
portion.

If he decides ABN AMRO overcharged Ms. Williams, debates will
follow over who belongs to the class, whether Ms. Williams can
adequately represent the class, and who she can sue.

ABN AMRO ceased to exist in 2007, when it merged into Citi
Mortgage.

Mr. Tillery has proposed to substitute Citi Mortgage as defendant,
and he argued in March that Bank of America was the true party in
interest.

So far, Judge Harrison has retained ABN AMRO as defendant.

Ms. Williams sued ABN AMRO in 2005.  In 2008, Mr. Tillery moved to
certify a class action.

ABN AMRO removed the case to federal court, arguing Mr. Tillery
changed his claims so much that he created a new action for
purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act.

U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan remanded the case to Madison
County, finding he lacked jurisdiction because no one had
certified it as a class action.

He found "good reason to believe that certification is required
prior to removal when a motion to certify identifies a class in
such a way that its certification may leave defendant liable for
conduct not specifically addressed by the complaint."

Back in Madison County, Mr. Tillery filed a new motion for
certification.

At a hearing on April 28, Judge Harrison said, "I'm not overly
impressed at how factually intensive this case is."

"Most of what you folks seem to be suggesting across the board is
an argument as to how numbers are properly mathematically
calculated," Harrison said.

Mr. Tillery offered an example of a borrower with a $500 monthly
note who sends in $400.

"Our position is that the late charge must be calculated as 5% of
one hundred dollars, that portion of the full monthly payment that
is overdue," he said.

Judge Harrison said, "Five dollars versus 25 dollars."

Mr. Tillery said, "They say they didn't start doing this until
1999."

He said ABN AMRO argued it would have to review documents
manually.

"It doesn't matter that it takes work to do it," he said.

Judge Harrison said as he understood it, the request is for more
than $20 back.

Mr. Tillery associate Michael Klenov said, "No, it is a refund of
all inflated charges."

Mr. Klenov branded as a red herring a suggestion that ABN AMRO
would have to depose individuals to ascertain their understanding
of the late charge.

"These differences that ABN raises are merely hypothetical and
have no effect on the claim that plaintiff is trying to certify,"
Mr. Klenov said.

For ABN AMRO, Sarah Wolff of Chicago said there are different
notes with different interpretations.

"You have to find out which note each of the class members
signed," Ms. Wolff said.

She said the number of loans in question exceeded a million.

Judge Harrison said, "Aren't you really saying that it's tedious
rather than it's difficult? It doesn't take a Nobel prize winning
rocket scientist to figure this out.

"I don't get to rewrite the note.  I get to interpret the note."

Ms. Wolff said, "Their definition of payment is a transfer of any
amount of money.

"The definition of a payment is payment of the principal and
interest due for the month."

Judge Harrison said, "I'm getting to the point of dealing with
something that is either uniformly right or uniformly wrong.

"Regardless of the merits of your argument, isn't it the same
argument with regard to all the members of the class?"

Ms. Wolff said yes.

Judge Harrison said, "It's appropriate that I deal with these
issues on a uniform basis with regard to all the members of the
class, not whether I grant any relief or not [Thurs] day."

Ms. Wolff's associate, David Smith of Chicago, said there was no
contractual relationship between Williams and ABN AMRO.

He said that two weeks after she filed the suit, she paid off the
loan without protest.

"That to me is a different factual circumstance than the person
who did or did not get these series of letters," Mr. Smith said.

He said laws of states vary on unjust enrichment and fraud.

"Our argument is, until you make a monthly payment, the entire
amount is still outstanding," Mr. Smith said.

Judge Harrison said, "The only debate here is, is there any
difference in what the penalty is between whether I pay one dollar
or whether I pay 499 dollars."

Mr. Smith asked if he considered a dollar a timely payment of
principal and interest.

Judge Harrison said no and added, "It is considered a default.  It
constitutes grounds to foreclose.

"Everybody in the class certification that plaintiff proposes is
in violation of their note."

Ms. Wolff said Mr. Williams made voluntary payment.

Judge Harrison said, "To me, the voluntary payment doctrine in a
consumer account situation isn't very attractive."

"If I buy something and it costs five dollars, and I give the
cashier a twenty and they give me five in change and I walk off,
you are suggesting that's voluntary payment.

"I'm suggesting it is not. I'm suggesting that it's not a
voluntary payment.

"It's an involuntary overcharging."

Mr. Klenov said, "If a note doesn't have the specific language,
it's not part of our class.  Our class is defined by borrowers who
paid the full late charge."

Judge Harrison said legal issues predominated, not factual issues.

He said ABN AMRO raised a voluntary payment defense against all
claims, including that of Mr. Williams.

He said that doesn't mean she prevails.

"First, the plaintiff would have to succeed on the court's ruling
as to the definition of overdue payment," Judge Harrison said.

He granted class certification.


AMERICAN HOME: Georgia Appeals Court Overturns $459MM Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled in
favor of American Home Services, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court
order that held AHS liable in a class action lawsuit over
unsolicited advertisements.  The panel is composed of Circuit
Judges Christopher McFadden, Herbert E. Phipps, and Gary Blaylock
Andrews.

AHS is a siding, window and gutter installation company that
operated from 2002 to 2004.  A Fast Sign Company, Inc., dba
Fastsigns, filed the class action in 2003, alleging that AHS
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending
out unsolicited facsimile advertisements.  The trial court
certified the requested class and entered a $459 million judgment
against AHS.  AHS appealed the order.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court erroneously applied
the TCPA and entered judgment based on the number of fax
advertisements sent, rather than received.  The Appellate Court
also pointed out that the Georgia Supreme Court has concluded that
only plaintiffs who received an unsolicited fax may recover in a
private TCPA action.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacated the trial court judgment
and remanded the case so that the trial court can properly
consider the evidence presented in accordance with the TCPA.

A copy of the Appellate Court's May 11, 2011, decision is
available at http://is.gd/ieFbi5from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. disclosed that it had
signed a memorandum of understanding on June 2 to settle the
disclosed, putative class action lawsuits captioned Walker v.
Bihl, et al., and Prime Investors Fund v. Bihl, et al.,
respectively, filed in the Hennepin County District Court on April
29, 2011 and May 5, 2011, respectively.  The Merger Litigation
relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 10,
2011, by and among Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., NIKA Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Endo, and AMS.

The Company agreed to the memorandum of understanding solely to
avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The other
defendants and all plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation are parties
to the memorandum of understanding, which 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, AMS has 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 in an amount to be determined by the
Hennepin County District Court. This payment will not affect the
amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger or the
timing of the special meeting of AMS stockholders scheduled for
June 15, 2011 in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Discovery in Mass. Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a class action lawsuit alleging that Apollo Global
Management, LLC, fixed prices for target companies is in the early
stages, 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 July 16, 2008, Apollo was joined as a defendant in a pre-
existing purported class action pending in Massachusetts federal
court against, among other defendants, numerous private equity
firms.  The suit alleges that beginning in mid-2003, Apollo and
the other private equity firm defendants violated the U.S.
antitrust laws by forming "bidding clubs" or "consortia" that,
among other things, rigged the bidding for control of various
public corporations, restricted the supply of private equity
financing, fixed the prices for target companies at artificially
low levels and allocated amongst themselves an alleged market for
private equity services in leveraged buyouts.  The suit seeks
class action certification, declaratory and injunctive relief,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  On August 27, 2008,
Apollo and its co-defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint and on November 20, 2008, the Court granted the
Company's motion.  The Court also dismissed two other defendants,
Permira and Merrill Lynch.  In an order dated August 18, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
expand the complaint and to obtain additional discovery.  The
Court ruled that plaintiffs could amend the complaint and obtain
discovery in a second discovery phase limited to eight additional
transactions.  The Court gave the plaintiffs until September 17,
2010 to amend the complaint to include the additional eight
transactions.  On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend the complaint by adding the additional eight
transactions and adding Apollo as a defendant.  On October 6,
2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the fourth
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, filed on
October 7, 2010, adds Apollo Global Management, LLC, as a
defendant.  On November 4, 2010, Apollo moved to dismiss, arguing
that the claims against Apollo are time-barred and that the
allegations against Apollo are insufficient to state an antitrust
conspiracy claim.  On February 17, 2011, the Court denied Apollo's
motion to dismiss, ruling that Apollo should raise the statute of
limitations issues on summary judgment after discovery is
completed.  Apollo filed its answer to the fourth amended
complaint on March 21, 2011.  Currently, the Company does not
believe that a loss from liability in this case is either probable
or reasonably estimable.  The Court granted Apollo's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' initial complaint in 2008, ruling that Apollo
was released from the only transaction in which it allegedly was
involved. While plaintiffs have survived Apollo's motion to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint, the Court stated in denying
the motion that it will consider the statute of limitations (one
of the bases for Apollo's motion to dismiss) at the summary
judgment stage.  Based on the applicable statute of limitations,
among other reasons, Apollo believes that plaintiffs' claims lack
factual and legal merit.  In addition, discovery is in its early
stages.  For all of these reasons, no estimate of possible loss,
if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo believes that this action is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit pending in New York, the Company disclosed in
its May 13, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Atricure and certain of its current and former officers were named
as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324 (United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York)).  The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from the Company's initial public offering in
August 2005 through February 16, 2006.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This motion was denied in September 2007, and a motion for
reconsideration of that denial was denied in January 2009.
Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as of December 31,
2009, the Company recorded a liability of $2,000,000, which
represented an estimate of the potential defense and/or settlement
costs.  In addition, the Company recorded a related receivable of
$2,000,000 from its insurance carrier for the potential defense
and/or settlement costs, as recovery was expected beyond a
reasonable doubt.  On October 22, 2010, the parties signed a
Definitive Stipulation of Settlement for $2,000,000, which is
subject to notice to the class as well as approval by the court
for which a hearing is scheduled to occur on May 27, 2011.  The
Company expects to recover all of the $2,000,000 loss through an
insurance claim and has recorded a $2,000,000 asset within current
assets which represents the amount considered probable of recovery
from the insurance claim.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue.  The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system.  AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias.  In 2008, the company
received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for July 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of an agreement to settle a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Authentidate
Holding Corp. is scheduled for July 20, 2011, according to the
Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and former officers.  Plaintiffs
in those actions alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The securities law claims
were based on the allegations that the Company failed to disclose
that its August 2002 agreement with the USPS contained certain
performance metrics, and that the USPS could cancel the agreement
if the Company did not meet these metrics; that it did not
disclose complete and accurate information as to its performance
under, and efforts to renegotiate, the USPS agreement; and that
when the Company did disclose that the USPS might cancel the
agreement, the market price of its stock declined.

On October 5, 2005 the Court consolidated the class actions under
the caption In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation., C.A. No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS), and appointed the
Illinois State Board of Investment as lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint on January 3, 2006, which asserted
the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged that
Authentidate violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable technology.
On July 14, 2006, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety; certain claims were dismissed with
prejudice and plaintiff was given leave to replead those claims
which were not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
did not assert any claims relating to the Company's patents or
under the Securities Act of 1933, but which otherwise was
substantially similar to the prior complaint.  The second amended
complaint sought unspecified monetary damages.  The Company moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 13, 2006.  On
March 26, 2009, the District Court dismissed, with prejudice, the
second amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed an appeal and
a hearing in the case was held before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on February 3, 2010.

On March 12, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued an order affirming in part and vacating and
remanding in part the March 26, 2009 order of dismissal.  On
December 23, 2010, the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers entered into a settlement.
If the settlement is given final approval by the District Court,
among other things: (i) all claims will be dismissed with
prejudice and release; and (ii) a payment of $1.9 million will be
made for the benefit of the settlement class, which will be funded
by the Company's insurance carrier.  On February 2, 2011, the
District Court entered an order that preliminarily approved the
Stipulation of Settlement; preliminarily certified a settlement
class of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between July 16, 2004 and May 27, 2005, inclusive; and scheduled a
hearing for July 20, 2011 to determine whether to grant final
approval of the settlement.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Sanctions in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting a court order on its
motion for sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel in a
consolidated lawsuit captioned In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 0:07-cv-61542-UU, United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida, according to the
Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and five of its current or former officers.
The defendants in this action are the Company, James A. White,
Valerie C. Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo, and Alan B.
Levan. The Complaint, which was later amended, alleges that during
the purported class period of November 9, 2005 through October 25,
2007, the Company and the named officers knowingly and/or
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses. The Complaint sought to assert claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2007, the Court
consolidated into Hubbard a separately filed action captioned
Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07-
cv-61623-WPD. On February 5, 2008, the Court appointed State-
Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP
to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per
share to shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Class
A Common Stock during the period of April 26, 2007 to October 26,
2007 and retained those shares until the end of the period. The
jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month period from
October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007. Prior to the beginning of the
trial, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any prior period. On
April 25, 2011, the Court granted defendants' post-trial motion
for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the jury verdict,
resulting in a judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims.
On May 5, 2011, defendants filed a motion for sanctions against
plaintiffs and their counsel seeking reimbursement of their
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this
lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to appeal
the Court's order setting aside the jury verdict.

BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'s principal assets consist of its
ownership in BankAtlantic, a federal savings bank headquartered in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and its subsidiaries.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary bank is awaiting a court's
order on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
associated with overdraft fees, according to the Company's May 13,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2010, the two pending class action complaints against
BankAtlantic associated with overdraft fees were consolidated. The
Complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleges that
BankAtlantic improperly re-sequenced debit card transactions from
largest to smallest, improperly assessed overdraft fees on
positive balances, and improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees
on customers. BankAtlantic has filed a motion to dismiss which is
pending with the Court.

BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'s principal assets consist of its
ownership in BankAtlantic, a federal savings bank headquartered in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and its subsidiaries.


BAPTIST HEALTH: Certification of Medical Charges Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Karen R. Baker of the Supreme Court of Arkansas
affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order granting Andre
Hutson's motion for class certification of a lawsuit against
Baptist Health over improper charges.

Judge Baker ruled on the matter upon Baptist Health's second
interlocutory appeal of the circuit court certification.  The
appeal is captioned Baptist Health, appellant, v. Andre Hutson, et
al., appellee, Case No. 10-1150 (Ark. Sup. Ct.).

Mr. Hutson re-filed his class action complaint after the original
complaint was junked.  He alleged that Baptist Health billed
excessive amounts for certain outpatient medical tests as compared
to rates found in the hospital's master-charge catalog.  He
asserted that a class action was the only feasible method to
address the controversy as Baptist Health had breached its
contractual obligation to more than one thousand patients for
certain identified medical services or IMS.  The circuit court
certified the class in a July 2010 order.

Judge Baker found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's
approval of the "class" definition.  She noted that based on the
evidence presented, Baptist Health's records contain much of the
information needed to analyze the issue.

The circuit court also didn't abuse discretion in finding that the
requirement of predominance is satisfied, Judge Baker said.  The
circuit court said that the focal point of Mr. Hutson's case was
the master-charge rate assessed a potential class member for each
of the IMS in Baptist's form contract.  "The common issue is a
threshold one and will result in either a dismissal or a basis for
determining damages," Judge Baker opined.

Finally, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the
circuit court's determination that the superiority requirement is
satisfied.  Judge Baker agreed with the circuit court that a class
action is the superior method for proceeding because the only
alternative method to adjudicate the claims of the class would be
through numerous separate trials, with the potential for different
and inconsistent results.

A copy of the Supreme Court's May 12, 2011, Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/UdyKKDfrom Leagle.com.


CANADIAN RECORD LABELS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobby, writing for the Financial Post, reports that a
judge has given the go-ahead to a C$50-million settlement in a
copyright infringement lawsuit brought against four Canadian
record labels for unpaid royalties.

Judge George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
approved the settlement of the proposed class action in Toronto on
May 30, but not before a bit of family drama played out.

The estate of jazz legend Chet Baker was the original lead
plaintiff, representing songwriters and music publishers with
outstanding royalty claims against the record companies for
unlicensed use of their work.  But a dispute between the deceased
trumpeter's widow and his son over the estate's involvement in the
case slowed the settlement's approval earlier this year.

"The solution was simply to substitute the lead plaintiff,"
Jon Foreman, a partner at Harrison Pensa LLP, one of the lawyers
for the plaintiffs, told the court on May 30.

The judge approved an order substituting Craig Northey, a founding
member of the Odds -- which had a number of hit singles in the
1990s including "Someone Who's Cool" and "Make You Mad" -- as lead
plaintiff.  More recently, Mr. Northey has performed on Hockey
Night in Canada during Vancouver Canucks games.

The defendants, Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music
Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada
Inc. admit no liability.  But they agreed to the settlement in
exchange for a full release of the plaintiffs' claims for use of
work listed on what are known in the Canadian recording industry
as "pending lists."  These lists, accumulated over many years,
contain works for which no license was obtained and no
compensation paid.  The action applies only to physical
recordings, not online or digital products.

According to the original statement of claim, filed in 2008, there
were more than 300,000 works on the pending lists.  With statutory
damages for use of unlicensed work ranging from C$500 to c$20,000
-- and with the plaintiffs claiming the maximum end of that range
-- the action could have been worth up to C$6-billion.

But, in what was described in court as a contentious and heated
process that included eight court-assisted mediation meetings and
numerous case management appearances, the parties reached an
agreement that includes the financial settlement as well as a
process for dealing with future use of unlicensed work.

"The result overall is approximately C$50.2-million in settlement
benefits to the class," Mr. Foreman said.  "I believe it's a
strong financial resolution to the case."  He noted that while the
class is still undefined, it likely numbers in the thousands, but
not the full 300,000, as many rights holders would have multiple
works on the list.

The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) and the
Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and
Publishers (SODRAC), which represent most publishers and
songwriters in the country and were also parties to the case, will
be tasked with administering the new system for payment of
royalties to music rights holders.

"The practices which gave rise to the pending list in the past
will end," said Tim Pinos, counsel for the CMRRA and SODRAC.

He said the new process will first ensure efforts are made to find
the rights holders and, if not found, the record companies may
apply for an unlocatable license and the money for that license
will be paid into trust held by CMRRA and SODRAC.

The fee to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel out of the settlement
funds has yet to be determined.  Plaintiffs' counsel has
undertaken to stay on to get the word out to rights holders who
may be eligible for compensation under the settlement.


CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in
two proceedings seeking certification as class actions alleging
securities or conduct violations by the Company, 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 Company operates in a legal and regulatory environment that
exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks.  As a
result, the Company is involved in various disputes and legal
proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and regulatory
investigations, including a number of investigatory matters and
legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related to
past commissioned sales of alternative investment products.  In
2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount
(approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned
products were in private placements of alternative products, two
of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and
related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC and related
issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of
certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have financial difficulties.
Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the
stock market decline have contributed to decline in broker-dealer
subsidiary client portfolio values.  As a result of such alleged
failings of alternative products and the uncertainty of client
recovery from the various product issuers, the Company is subject
to regulatory scrutiny and a number of recently instituted legal
or arbitration proceedings, including two recently instituted
proceedings seeking certification as class actions which name the
Company as one of a number of defendants and allege various
securities or conduct violations, one with respect to private
placements of Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer
entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary placed
approximately $100 million of debt securities and the other with
regard to private placements of Provident Royalties, LLC and
related issuer entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary
placed approximately $60 million of debt securities.  The Company
intends to vigorously contest the allegations of the various
proceedings and believes that there are multiple meritorious legal
and fact based defenses in these matters.  Such cases are subject
to many uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to
predict, including the impact on operations or on the financial
statements, particularly in the earlier stages of a case. The
Company makes provisions for cases brought against it when, in the
opinion of management after seeking legal advice, it is probable
that a liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  The current proceedings are subject to uncertainties
and as such, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss
or a range of loss that may result from each individual matter.
There is a contemplated settlement regarding both Medical Capital
Corporation and Provident Royalties, LLC, by which the Company
would contribute monies to a settlement fund.  The contemplated
settlement, in the amount of $200,000, was recorded in the books
of the Company as a liability, though the settlement is subject to
approval by a number of entities and there is no assurance that
the settlement will be completed.

Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., derives the majority of its
revenues and net income from sales of mutual funds, insurance
products, and various other securities through Capital Financial
Services, Inc., the Company's broker-dealer subsidiary.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Defends Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to defend itself from
two natural gas mismeasurement lawsuits, 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.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries
are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates pending
in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.  In one case (originally
filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the
defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the volume
of natural gas for more than 25 years.  The plaintiffs amended
their petition in this suit in July 2003 in response to an order
from the judge denying certification of the plaintiffs' alleged
class.  In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims
against certain defendants (including two CERC Corp.
subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they
purport to represent and eliminated previously asserted claims
based on mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content
of the gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit,
again as representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in
which they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.  In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble
damages, interest, costs and fees.  In September 2009, the
district court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs'
request for class certification of their case and, in March 2010,
denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of that order.
The time for seeking further review of the district court's
decision has now passed.

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


CHICAGO, IL: Fire Dep't Applicants' Suit Is Timely, 7th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed a district court order in the class action
captioned, Arthur L. Lewis, Jr., et al. v. City of Chicago,
Illinois, Case No. 07-2052 (7th Cir.)  The panel consists of
Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, William Joseph Bauer, and
Richard Posner.

The 7th Circuit reviewed the City's appeal on remand from the
Supreme Court of the United States.

The class action alleges an 89 and up score cutoff on written
examinations given to applicants for positions in the Chicago Fire
Department had a disparate impact on African-American applicants.
An applicant who got a score between 89 and 64 filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC in March 1997.  After obtaining
right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, several applicants filed the
class action in 1998.  The district court rejected the City's
business-necessity defense and later, awarded relief that included
the hiring of 132 class members and damages based on the loss-of-
a-chance approach.

The City appealed the district court ruling, questioning the
timeliness of the March 1997 charge.

Everyone who scored 89 and up was treated alike; everyone who
scored 65 to 88 was treated alike.  The City conceded that this
difference created a disparate impact, the 7th Circuit noted.  The
district judge found that the cutoff at 89 was not justified, and
the City did not appeal that conclusion.

"The City's concession plus the district court's uncontested
findings establish all that is required for the plaintiffs to
prevail on the merits," the Appellate Court held.

The 7th Circuit acknowledged that the City's premise is correct --
that delay in filing the EEOC charge meant that the highly
qualified applicants pool is beyond legal challenge.  "But the
conclusion does not follow, because under the Supreme Court's
analysis, the question is not whether a list, test, or criterion
is lawful, but whether each use to which it is put was justified
under the criteria in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)," the 7th
Circuit said.

Sec. 2000e-2(k) refers to the burden of proof in disparate impact
cases.

Accordingly, the 7th Circuit upheld the judgment of the district
court, except with respect to the remedy based on the first batch
of hires.  The case is remanded with instructions to modify the
remedy to eliminate any relief based on the hires of May 1996.

A copy of the 7th Circuit's May 13, 2011, order is available at
http://is.gd/4Zl9n2from Leagle.com.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust laws were filed on various dates in 2003 against
several motor vehicle manufacturers, including Chrysler Group
LLC's subsidiary Chrysler Canada, as well as the National
Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association.  Some complaints were filed in federal courts in
various states and others were filed in state courts.  The
complaints allege that the defendants conspired to prevent the
sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in Canada in
order to maintain new car prices at artificially high levels in
the U.S.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and treble damages
on behalf of each person who bought or leased a new vehicle in the
U.S. since January 1, 2001.  The federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
and, in July 2009, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  Chrysler Canada remains a defendant
in four of the pending state court actions.  In addition, Chrysler
Canada is a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in September 2007 that claims
that a similar alleged conspiracy was preventing lower-cost U.S.
vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

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


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend North Carolina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, 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.

CompuCredit Corporation and five of its other subsidiaries are
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et
al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed
in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-
called "payday lending" business, certain of the Company's Retail
Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing
consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit
Corporation is the alter ego of the Company's subsidiaries and is
liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages of
up to $75,000 per class member, and attorney's fees.  The Company
is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  These claims are similar to
those that have been asserted against several other market
participants in transactions involving small balance, short-term
loans made to consumers in North Carolina.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend California Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit filed in a California 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 March 31, 2011.

CompuCredit Corporation is named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al. vs. CompuCredit
Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust, No. 4:08-cv-4878, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs allege that in marketing and managing
the Aspire Visa card the defendants violated the federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
The class includes all persons who within the four years prior to
the filing of the lawsuit were issued an Aspire Visa card or paid
money with respect thereto.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of
damage, including unspecified monetary damages and the voiding of
the plaintiffs' obligations.  The Company is vigorously defending
this lawsuit.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from lawsuits commenced by employees in Israel,
according to the Company's May 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 31, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is subject to the stay.  The Deutsch case has been
scheduled for a preliminary hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court
in October 2011.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: N.J. Court Dismissed Class Suit vs. Ulticom
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed in December 2010 a
purported shareholder class action against Ulticom, Inc., a former
subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc., according to the
Company's May 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31, 2011.

On October 14, 2010, a purported shareholder class action was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division,
Burlington County, entitled Greenbaum v. Ulticom, Inc. et al., No.
c 86-10, against Ulticom, Platinum Equity Advisors LLC and certain
of its affiliates, and Ulticom's board of directors.  The
complaint alleged that Ulticom's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that Ulticom's shareholders
receive maximum value for their shares in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Ulticom by Platinum Equity and that
Platinum Equity aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.
The action sought, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission and attorneys' fees and costs.  On December 16, 2010,
the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to terminate
the action without prejudice, with each party to bear its own
expenses.  The case was dismissed on December 21, 2010.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: $112.5MM Settlement Balance Due Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
Of the $165 million settlement amount in the lawsuits arising from
Comverse Technology, Inc.'s Special Committee investigation in
2006, only $112.5 million remains unpaid, which amount is due and
payable on or before November 15, 2011, according to the Company's
May 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, CTI announced the creation of a Special
Committee of its Board of Directors composed of outside directors
to review CTI's historic stock option grant practices and related
accounting matters, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of
the stated dates of option grants and whether all proper corporate
procedures were followed.  In November 2006, the Special
Committee's investigation was expanded to other financial and
accounting matters, including the recognition of revenue related
to certain contracts, errors in the recording of certain deferred
tax accounts, the misclassification of certain expenses, the
misuse of accounting reserves and the misstatement of backlog.
The Special Committee issued its report on January 28, 2008.
Following the commencement of the Special Committee's
investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries and some of CTI's
former directors and officers and a current director were named as
defendants in several class and derivative actions, and CTI
commenced direct actions against certain of its former officers
and directors.

           Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action against
certain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezing
approximately $50 million of Mr. Alexander's assets.  In order to
ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney a
Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission of
any funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander.  The United States District
Court entered an order on November 30, 2010, directing that the
assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI.  The
process of liquidating such assets has been completed and the
proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred to
a class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlements
of the Direct Actions, the consolidated shareholder class action
and shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to settle the
shareholder class action was approved by the court in which such
action was pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the
federal and state derivative actions was approved by the courts in
which such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23,
2010, respectively.

                    Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits were
filed by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,
purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders who
purchased its publicly traded securities.  Two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and three actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825, was filed
by the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,
2007.  The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2001 and November 14, 2006.
The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers and
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options.
The action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement on
December 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010, and
approved by the court in which such action was pending on June 23,
2010.

                      Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009, and December 17, 2009, CTI entered into
agreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and
consolidated shareholder derivative actions, respectively.  The
agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action was
amended on June 19, 2010.  Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreed
to waive certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchange
for a deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of the
settlement consideration and the right to a credit (referred to as
the Opt-out Credit) in respect of a portion of the settlement
funds that would have been payable to a class member that elected
not to participate in and be bound by the settlement.  In
connection with such settlements, CTI dismissed its Direct Actions
against Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, the Company's former Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, David Kreinberg, its former Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and William F. Sorin,
its former Senior General Counsel and director, who, in turn,
dismissed any counterclaims they filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 million
that were paid or remain payable as:

   * $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the
     settlement agreement in December 2009;

   * $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an
     agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6
     million in respect of the anticipated Opt-out Credit, which
     holdback is required to be paid by CTI if the Opt-out
     Credit is less);

   * $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011; and

   * $112.5 million (less the amount, if any, by which the
     Opt-out Credit exceeds the holdback) payable on or before
     November 15, 2011.

Of the $112.5 million due on or before November 15, 2011, $82.5
million is payable in cash or, at CTI's election, in shares of
CTI's common stock valued using the ten day average of the closing
prices of CTI's common stock prior to such election, provided that
CTI's common stock is listed on a national securities exchange on
or before the payment date, and that the shares delivered at any
one time have an aggregate value of at least $27.5 million.  The
payment of $30.0 million made in May 2011 could also have been
paid in shares of CTI's common stock if, prior thereto, CTI had
met such conditions to using shares as payment consideration.  If
CTI receives net cash proceeds from the sale of certain auction
rate securities (ARS) held by it in an aggregate amount in excess
of $50.0 million, CTI is required to use $50.0 million of such
proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts and, if CTI receives net
cash proceeds from the sale of such ARS in an aggregate amount in
excess of $100.0 million, CTI is required to use an additional
$50.0 million of such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts.
In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit of
the plaintiff class in the account in which CTI holds its ARS
(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS AG) and
the proceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to
use the proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payable
under the settlement agreement are paid in full.

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, the
consolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivative
actions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund. All amounts payable by Mr.
Alexander have been paid.  Also, as part of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTI
shares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding share
capital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certain
rights to terminate the settlement and received the right to a
credit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that would
have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  CTI's settlement
of claims against it in the class action for aggregate
consideration of up to $165.0 million (less the Opt-out Credit) is
not contingent upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment
obligations.  Certain other defendants in the Direct Actions and
the shareholder derivative actions have paid or agreed to pay to
CTI an aggregate of $1.4 million and certain former directors
agreed to relinquish certain outstanding unexercised stock
options.  As part of the settlement of the shareholder derivative
actions, CTI paid, in October 2010, $9.4 million to cover the
legal fees and expenses of the plaintiffs.  In September 2010, CTI
received insurance proceeds of $16.5 million under its directors'
and officers' insurance policies in connection with the
settlements of the shareholder derivative actions and the
consolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wife
relinquished their claims to the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts that were subject to the forfeiture action, and the
United States District Court entered an order on November 30, 2010
directing that the assets in such accounts be liquidated and
remitted to CTI.  The process of liquidating such assets has been
completed and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts have
been transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,
as amended, was approved by the court in which such action was
pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the federal and
state derivative actions was approved by the courts in which such
actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23, 2010,
respectively.


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Accrues $550,000 in "Goodman" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. accrued $550,000 related to a
settlement it entered into with the plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit filed over the Company's merger with Triplecrown
Acquisition Corp., according to the Company's May 13, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,
styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the former directors of
Triplecrown.  The complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and their duty of disclosure in connection
with the Merger.  The plaintiff seeks, as alternative remedies,
damages in the amount of approximately $9.74 per share, to have
Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro rata to
members of the putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedy for
members of the putative class, and an opportunity for members of
the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connection
with the Merger.  The defendants filed an answer on December 23,
2009. On January 18, 2011, the Company and the former directors
entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff.
Following notice, on April 5, 2011, the Court held a hearing at
which it, among other things,  certified the proposed class and
approved the settlement.   The order approving the settlement was
entered on April 5, 2011. Pursuant to the settlement approved by
the Court, the class action will be resolved, and all claims will
be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for an aggregate payment
to the class of up to $1.4 million, of which up to $550,000 will
be paid by the Company and the balance will be paid by its
insurance carrier.  Members of the class will be sent additional
information relating to their rights in relation to the settlement
and instructions on how to participate in such settlement. The
Company accrued $550,000 at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010
which represents management's estimate of the Company's exposure
in connection with this litigation.


ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Awaits Court Okay of Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnergyConnect Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement contemplated in a memorandum of understanding entered
into with plaintiffs in a consolidated class action challenging
the Company's merger with Johnson Controls Holding Company, Inc.'s
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 2, 2011.

The Company, its board of directors, JCI Holding, and Eureka,
Inc., a subsidiary of JCI Holding or Merger Sub are named as
defendants in four putative class action lawsuits brought by
alleged shareholders of the Company challenging its proposed
merger with JCI Holding. The shareholder actions were filed in the
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. The actions are
called Jeff Putney v. EnergyConnect Group, Inc., et al., filed
March 9, 2011, Case No. 111-CV196058, Wanda A. Huber v.
EnergyConnect Group, Inc., et al., filed March 14, 2011, Case No.
111-CV196265, David Pierce v. Energy Connect Group, Inc., et al.,
filed March 25, 2011, Case No. 111-CV197445, and Bruce B. Barber
v. EnergyConnect Group, Inc., et al., filed April 14, 2011, Case
No. 111-CV198920. A stipulation was entered causing the lawsuits
to be consolidated. On April 12, 2011, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, alleging, among other things, that each
member of the Company's board of directors breached his or her
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by authorizing the
sale of the Company to JCI Holding for consideration that does not
maximize value to the Company's shareholders, engineering the
transaction to benefit themselves without regard to the Company's
shareholders, and issuing a preliminary proxy statement that fails
to disclose material information sufficient for the Company's
shareholders to analyze the fairness of the proposed merger. The
amended complaint also alleges that the Company, JCI Holding and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of the Company's board of
directors. The shareholder action seeks equitable relief,
including an injunction against consummating the merger on the
agreed-upon terms.

On May 2, 2011, counsel for the parties in the consolidated action
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement, which would include the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants. The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement and final approval of
the proposed settlement by the court. In connection with the
settlement and as provided in the memorandum of understanding, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that the Company's stockholders are entitled to
receive in the merger. The company denies and continues to deny
all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the
lawsuits.

As of April 2, 2011, the Company has accrued its own legal costs,
including an amount equal to its deductible under its applicable
D&O insurance policy.

EnergyConnect Group, Inc., is a provider of demand response
services to the electricity grid. Demand response programs provide
grid operators with additional electricity generation capacity by
encouraging consumers to curtail their electricity usage.


EQT PRODUCTION: Responds to Claims Over Split Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------
Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that EQT
Production Co. fired back last week against the platoon of lawyers
representing coalfield landowners -- suggesting that their most
recent request of a federal judge is intended not to protect their
clients, but rather to "protect the size of the pot" they could
win at the end of the sprawling class action suit.

The current debate in the year-old class action is over split
agreements: For decades, the natural gas company has encouraged
landowners to sign contracts dividing their current royalties --
and often all future payments -- with the coal owner.

The plaintiffs accuse the company of peddling such agreements by
misrepresenting Virginia law as a last-ditch attempt to cut down
on their future liability; once someone signs an agreement, even
if it's for just a portion of the royalties, they could be exempt
from the class action suit.  But the company contends that it
gains nothing from the practice; it is simply following Virginia
law to expedite the process.

The suit, one of five pending in U.S. District Court, involves
landowners whose coalbed methane was leased without their consent
to EQT by a state board.  Because both the landowner and the coal
owner claim rights to the gas, the royalty payments will remain in
an escrow account until either an agreement is reached or one
party sues the other.

In May, the plaintiffs asked a federal judge to forbid EQT from
encouraging split agreements, suggesting that the company's agents
have knocked on doors, intentionally garbled the law and omitted
crucial information.  Landowners cannot make an informed decision
if they're told only that the one way to get their money is to
split it with the coal company, their motion states.

In EQT's response, filed on May 31, the company denies that its
agents mislead landowners and calls an order banning their attempt
to settle ownership conflicts "an unwarranted and unnecessary
interference with state law."

"Once placed into escrow, the only way the money can be released
is by a legal decision or an agreement," the company wrote.
"There is nothing wrong in informing [landowners] of this fact."

"We have no interest in preventing anyone from making a
knowledgeable and informed decision to sign a split agreement,"
said David Stellings, one of the attorneys representing the
landowners.  "What we object to are decisions based on
misinformation or lack of information.  We feel like EQT is taking
advantage of these poor people and persuading them to get 50 cents
on the dollar."

EQT spokesman Kevin West did respond on June 1 to a request for
comment.

The plaintiffs allege that the company's representatives don't
tell landowners of the pending class actions over the matter in
question.  Nor do they tell them that in 2004, the Virginia
Supreme Court ruled that the landowner retains sole right to the
gas so long as they leased only their coal, the plaintiffs say.
The legislature followed suit in 2010, amending the Virginia Code
to specify that coal leases do not include coalbed methane.

Mr. West previously said that the company -- and the state board
that oversees escrow disbursements -- interpreted the 2004 ruling
and subsequent code amendment as applying only to that specific
case, contingent on the language of the lease involved. Each lease
must be dealt with individually.

In May, the plaintiffs filed a similar motion in a twin suit
against CNX Gas Corp., which agreed to immediately cease acquiring
split agreements until a future hearing.

EQT, offered the same arrangement by the plaintiffs, refused to
agree to stop facilitating split agreements.

"The main purpose of [the plaintiffs'] motion seems to be to
protect the size of the pot and to prevent any settlements that
may reduce it," the company's response states.  "Although [the]
plaintiff's supposed objective in this case is to obtain release
of the royalties in escrow, this motion would prevent settlements
that allow that to happen."

Both sides will argue their points at a hearing at 2 p.m. Tuesday
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon.


FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation is awaiting the outcome of appeals from the
summary judgment entered in several class action lawsuits
collectively referred to as the ATM FEE Antitrust Litigation,
according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court. Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004 (referred to collectively as the ATM Fee
Antitrust Litigation). The Court granted judgment in favor of the
defendants, dismissing the case on September 17, 2010. On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment.
The Company continues to believe the complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend them.

First Data Corporation, with principal executive offices in
Atlanta, Georgia, operates electronic commerce businesses
providing services that include merchant transaction processing
and acquiring services; credit, retail and debit card issuing and
processing services; prepaid card services; and check
verification, settlement and guarantee services.


GAMING PARTNERS: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kaplan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in April
2011 the dismissal of the putative class action filed by Robert J.
Kaplan against Gaming Partners International Corporation,
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 June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the Company, entitled Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain
Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry,
Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corporation
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, under Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF. Plaintiff Kaplan was
designated by the court as "Lead Plaintiff." On February 12, 2008,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, deleting several of the
defendants, and adding three others. The action is now captioned
Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a
Melody Sullivan Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric
P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International
Corporation.  The Company engaged counsel and has vigorously
defended against the claims presented. Defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint on April 16, 2008. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was thereafter granted and an order was entered dismissing
the Amended Complaint without prejudice on November 18, 2008.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 9, 2009.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was
filed on February 27, 2009. On September 28, 2009, Defendants'
motion was granted and judgment dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice was entered on September 29, 2009. On
October 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal of the
Court's judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12,
2011, the 9th Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Gaming Partners International Corporation
sells casino products to licensed casinos primarily in the United
States and Canada.


GEORGIA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Immigration Law
-----------------------------------------------------
David Beasley, writing for Reuters, reports that civil rights
groups filed a federal class action lawsuit on June 2 challenging
Georgia's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants that
is similar to one enacted by Arizona last year.

The measure, signed into law by Republican Governor Nathan Deal
last month, is set to take effect July 1.

"The lawsuit charges the extreme law endangers public safety,
invites the racial profiling of Latinos, Asians and others who
appear foreign to an officer, and interferes with federal law,"
said a statement issued by the American Civil Liberties Union and
other civil rights organizations.

The governor's office said Mr. Deal expects the state to prevail
in a legal challenge.

"These organizations falsely claim (the new law) is a copycat of
Arizona's legislation. It is not," said Deal's press secretary,
Stephanie Mayfield.

"The Georgia General Assembly carefully vetted a piece of
legislation that ensured a constitutional final product."

The Georgia law authorizes police to investigate the immigration
status of criminal suspects they think may be in the country
illegally.

It also requires many private employers to check the immigration
status of newly hired workers on a federal database called
E-Verify.

Some farmers are complaining that the legislation is creating a
shortage of seasonal workers before it even goes into effect, and
Mr. Deal has asked the state's agriculture commissioner to assess
those concerns.

Enforcement of U.S. immigration laws traditionally is handled by
federal, not state, authorities.  The Georgia measure is the
latest to gain favor among Republicans at the state level who
accuse President Barack Obama and the federal government of
failing to stem illegal immigration.

Georgia now joins Arizona and Utah in defending its new law in
federal court.

Key parts of the Arizona law were blocked by the federal courts
after the Obama administration challenged it on the grounds that
the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government sole authority
over immigration matters.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 upheld Arizona's right to require
employers to use E-Verify.  The court also held that Arizona could
suspend or revoke business licenses of those companies that
knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The 2007 law upheld by the court is separate from one Arizona
adopted last year requiring police to check the immigration status
of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

Last month, a federal judge temporarily blocked a milder
immigration law in Utah.  The ruling came on the same day the Utah
law, passed earlier this year, went into effect.


INSWEB CORP: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving a revised settlement agreement
in the securities class action lawsuit against InsWeb Corporation
remains pending, 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.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The complaint named as defendants InsWeb, certain current
and former officers and directors, and three investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for InsWeb's initial public
offering in July 1999.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offering failed to disclose, among
other things, that (i) the underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the
offerings and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated shares
of the stock sold in the offering to those customers in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
InsWeb stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No
specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims
against the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in
the InsWeb action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the
remaining claims.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  InsWeb and most of the other issuer defendants have
accepted the settlement proposal.  While the District Court was
considering final approval of the settlement, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals vacated the class certification of plaintiffs'
claims against the underwriters in six cases designated as focus
or test cases.  On December 14, 2006, the District Court ordered a
stay of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome
of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en
banc and resolution of the class certification issue.  On April 6,
2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court.  Because of the
significant technical barriers presented by the Court's decision,
the parties withdrew the proposed settlement and the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  Representatives of all of the parties
to the IPO litigation agreed to a revised settlement; as with the
earlier settlement proposal, the revised settlement proposal does
not require InsWeb to contribute any cash.  The revised settlement
was approved by the District Court on October 5, 2009, but a
number of plaintiffs appealed the approval to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeal.

The Company says there is no assurance that the new settlement
will be upheld on appeal.  If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The litigation and
settlement process is inherently uncertain and management cannot
predict the outcome, though, if unfavorable, it could have a
material adverse effect on InsWeb's financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Merger-Related Suits Still Pending in S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc., continues to defend three
lawsuits raising purported derivative and direct class action
claims in South Carolina, 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.

Three substantially identical lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina
related to the merger of the Company and a company formerly known
as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG") in late 2006.
The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second and third
lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney. These three
lawsuits were consolidated in 2010. The actions name as
defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers
and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the time of the
Merger. The plaintiffs raise purported derivative and direct
(class action) claims and contend that certain of the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.
The plaintiffs also make certain related claims against certain of
the defendants' former advisors. While the Company is a nominal
defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims, the
Company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief being
made against it. However, the Company has certain obligations to
provide indemnification to its officers and directors (and certain
former officers and directors) against certain claims and believes
the lawsuits are being defended vigorously. Certain fees and costs
related to this litigation are to be paid or reimbursed under the
Company's insurance programs. Because of the uncertainties
associated with the litigation, management cannot estimate the
impact of the ultimate resolution of the litigation. It is the
opinion of the Company's management that any failure by the
Company's insurance providers to provide any required insurance
coverage could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

International Textile Group, Inc., is a global, diversified
textile manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina,
with current operations principally in the United States, China,
Mexico, and Vietnam.


IPAYMENT INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit Is June 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York will consider on June 29, 2011, iPayment, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed by L. Green, doing
business as Tisa's Cakes, 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.

L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,
Online Data Corporation, and iPayment, Inc., United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09CV05679-
RJD-SMG.  This matter was last updated in the Company's Annual
Report for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed on Form 10-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2011.  As
the Company previously reported, this matter relates to a
purported class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff L. Green d/b/a
Tisa's Cakes in December 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, naming the Company, Online Data
Corporation, one of the Company's subsidiaries, and Northern
Leasing Systems, Inc. as defendants, as amended, by a First
Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), filed on September 8,
2010.  As the Company previously reported, in October 2010 the
Company filed a motion to dismiss count one (unjust enrichment) of
plaintiff's FAC, and plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Company's motion, but as of the date the Company last reported,
the court has not issued a ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss nor had it set a hearing date for the Company's motion to
dismiss.  Since the Company last reported, the Court has set
June 29, 2011, as the hearing date for the Company's motion to
dismiss.  At this time, the Company says it cannot predict with
any certainty how the court might rule on the Company's motion to
dismiss.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself and believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted, however, at this time the ultimate outcome of the
lawsuit and the Company's potential liability associated with the
claims asserted against it cannot be predicted with certainty, and
there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in
its defense or that a failure to prevail will not have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.


IPAYMENT INC: Has Until June 20 to Seek Dismissal of Vericomm Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California extended through June 20, 2011, iPayment, Inc.'s time
to move to dismiss, move to compel arbitration, answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint filed by Vericomm, 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.

Vericomm v. iPayment, Inc., et al., United States District Court,
Central District of California, Case No. 2:2011-cv-00608-MMM-AGR
-- this matter relates to a claim by Vericomm, Inc., one of the
Company's independent sales groups, who on January 20, 2011, filed
a purported Class Action Complaint against the Company in the
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.  When the Company last reported, the Company indicated
that it had not yet been served with the Complaint, and that at
that time, the parties were working to schedule mediation as
required by the terms of their contract.  Since the Company last
reported on this matter, the Parties participated in a mediation
conducted by Judge Schiavelli on April 19, 2011, and although no
resolution was reached at the mediation, the parties agreed to
continue settlement discussions following the mediation and to
continue to use Judge Schiavelli in the process.

In order to permit settlement discussions to continue, the Parties
agreed that Vericomm's counsel would cause service of Summons and
Complaint on the Company's counsel, which the Company agreed were
authorized to accept service of on the Company's behalf and that
after service of Summons and Complaint the Parties would file a
joint stipulation with the Court requesting that the Court issue
an order extending the time for the Company to move to dismiss,
move to compel arbitration, answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, through and including July 19, 2011.  Plaintiff mailed
the Summons and Complaint to the Company's counsel, who accepted
it on April 27, 2011 and on April 27, 2011, the parties filed a
joint Stipulation with the Court requesting that the Court issue
an order extending the time for the Company to move to dismiss,
move to compel arbitration, answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, through and including July 19, 2011.

On May 6, 2011 the Court signed an order extending the time for
the Company to move to dismiss, move to compel arbitration, answer
or otherwise respond to the Complaint, through and including
June 20, 2011.

Because this case is in its early stages, the Company says it is
uncertain whether an adverse result in this matter may or may not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's business,
financial condition or results of operations.  If a mutually
acceptable resolution is not successful through any continued
mediation process and the litigation proceeds, the Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against all of the claims asserted in
the Complaint.  However, at this time the ultimate outcome and the
Company's potential liability associated with the claims asserted
in the Complaint cannot be predicted with any certainty and there
can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that a failure to prevail will not have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.


JP MORGAN: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit Over Check Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
district court's dismissal of a class action against JP Morgan
Chase Bank over improper service fee charges.

A class action was initiated in January 2010 by Vida Baptista, who
was issued a check by one of Chase's account holders.  Ms.
Baptista brought the check to Chase to cash it, but said that
Chase charged him $6 for the encashment.  Under the class action,
Ms. Baptista asserted two charges: (1) That Chase's charging of a
check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. Section 655.85, and
(2) A claim of unjust enrichment against Chase.  Chase sought and
obtained from the district court a dismissal of the action.  The
district court found that both of Ms. Baptista's claims are
preempted by the National Bank Act.  Ms. Baptista appealed the
dismissal ruling.

The 11th Circuit adopted the reasoning of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and holds that Fla. Stat. Sec.
655.85 is preempted by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency's
regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA.  The OCC is the
agency empowered by the NBA to supervise and regulate federally
chartered banks in accordance with the Act.  The OCC promulgated a
regulation which states that a national bank may charge customers
non-interest charges and fees, including deposit account service
charges.  It is not unreasonable to define "customer" as any
person presenting a check for payment, the 11th Circuit holds.

The 11th Circuit further noted that there is a clear conflict in
the case: the OCC specifically authorizes banks to charge fees to
non-account-holders presenting checks for payment.  The state's
prohibition on charging fees to non-account-holders, which reduces
the bank's fee options by 50%, is in substantial conflict with
federal authorization to charge those fees.

Moreover, the 11th Circuit concluded that because Ms. Baptista's
unjust enrichment claim relies on identical facts as her claim
under Fla. Stat. Sec. 655.85, it too is preempted.

The 11th Circuit's May 11, 2011, ruling is available at
http://is.gd/mv75Orfrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Baptista's appeal was reviewed by Circuit Judges Joel Fredrick
Dubina and James Clinkscales Hill and the Honorable Richard W.
Goldberg of the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Signs MOU to Settle Delaware Suits vs. Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a litigation in Delaware over its merger
with RehabCare Group, Inc., according to the Company's May 12,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

RehabCare Group, Inc., the members of its board of directors and
the Company have been named as defendants in certain actions filed
on behalf of RehabCare stockholders challenging the proposed
merger of Kindred and RehabCare.  As disclosed in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus, on February 15, 2011, the Norfolk County
Retirement System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred; on
February 28, 2011, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred; and on March 4, 2011, Plumbers
& Pipefitters National Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of
RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred.

As also disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, on
March 9, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware
litigation under the caption In re RehabCare Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation and plaintiffs filed a verified
consolidated class action complaint on April 5, 2011. Defendants
commenced document production on March 30, 2011 and substantially
completed it by April 22, 2011. Depositions took place between
April 28, 2011 and May 11, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation
regarding the settlement of the Delaware litigation.  In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, (i) Kindred and RehabCare agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are
contained in this Form 8-K, (ii) RehabCare agreed to make the
payment, at and subject to the closing of the merger between
Kindred and RehabCare, of $2,500,000 (two million five hundred
thousand dollars) in cash into a settlement pool for the benefit
of the plaintiff class in In re RehabCare Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, to be distributed after final approval of the
settlement of the Delaware Litigation and (iii) Kindred, Kindred
Healthcare Development, Inc. and RehabCare agreed to enter into
the amendment, dated May 12, 2011, to the merger agreement, dated
as of February 7, 2011, among Kindred, Kindred Healthcare
Development, Inc. and RehabCare, the material terms of which are:

   -- Inclusion of an acknowledgement by Kindred and RehabCare of
      the waiver of any existing standstill undertakings for the
      benefit of RehabCare;

   -- Change of the definition of "Company Termination Fee" to
      mean "an amount equal to $13,000,000.00 (thirteen million
      dollars)"; and

   -- Modification of the agreement to eliminate the requirement
      for a three-business day period during which Kindred has
      the right to match a superior proposal.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to RehabCare's stockholders.  In
the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement,
a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware litigation
will file petitions for the award of attorneys' fees and expenses
to be paid by RehabCare and/or its successor(s) in interest.
RehabCare (and/or its successor(s) in interest) shall pay or cause
to be paid such award(s) of attorneys' fees and expenses.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


KPMG LLP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP on June 2 disclosed that although
KPMG LLP -- one of the "Big Four" accounting firms -- publicly
touts its commitment to diversity and equal opportunity, the
numbers tell a different story entirely.  Women comprise about
half of KPMG's employees, but are conspicuously absent from the
top leadership positions.  The Company's 20-member global
executive team and 24-member global board each have only one
female representative.  Similarly, women are only 18% of all KPMG
Partners compared to nearly 50% of all employees.

Aiming to put an end to the systemic gender discrimination at
KPMG, a former female Senior Manager filed a $350 million class
action discrimination lawsuit against the company on June 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
Plaintiff, Donna Kassman, lives in New York and worked in KPMG's
New York office for seventeen years before resigning as a result
of gender discrimination.  Plaintiff Kassman and the class are
represented by Janette Wipper, Siham Nurhussein, and Deepika Bains
of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP.

KPMG is an audit, tax, and advisory services firm headquartered in
Netherlands with U.S. offices headquartered in New York City.  In
2010, KPMG reported global revenues of $20.63 billion.

Plaintiff Kassman alleges that KPMG engages in systemic
discrimination against its female Managers, including but not
limited to Managers, Senior Managers and Managing Directors.  The
lawsuit is intended to change KPMG's discriminatory pay and
promotion policies and practices, as well as its systemic failure
to properly investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination
and harassment.  The Plaintiff is filing this action on behalf of
a class of thousands of current and former female employees who
have worked as Managers at KPMG from 2008 through the date of
judgment.

KPMG promotes fewer women to Partner (18%) than the industry
average (23%) and fewer women to Senior Manager (35%) than the
industry average (44%). "Across the accounting industry, women are
conspicuously absent from leadership positions; but at KPMG, women
fare even worse," said Janette Wipper.  "As soon as women come
within reach of partnership, the Company's male-dominated owners
find ways to block their advancement,"

Despite Plaintiff Kassman's long tenure and stellar performance,
KPMG refused to promote her along the partnership track.  Ms.
Kassman's supervisors repeatedly told her throughout 2008 and 2009
that she was next in line for a promotion to Managing Director.
Around the time Ms. Kassman was to be promoted, however, two male
employees complained that she was "unapproachable" and "too
direct," thinly-veiled gender-based criticisms designed to derail
her career advancement.  Based on these unfounded, discriminatory
comments, KPMG removed Ms. Kassman from the promotion track,
subjected her to numerous hostile interrogations, and advised her
to meet with a "coach" to work on her supposed issues.  Instead of
disciplining the two male employees for their campaign of
harassment, KPMG rewarded them by putting them up for promotion.

KPMG's female Managers are not only under-promoted, but underpaid
as well.  In one particularly egregious act of discrimination,
KPMG slashed Ms. Kassman's base salary by $20,000 while she was on
maternity leave because she was paid "too much."  KPMG cited no
business justification for slashing her salary.  When Ms. Kassman
complained about the salary cut, her male supervisor asserted that
she did not need the money because she "ha[d] a nice engagement
ring."

"Unfortunately, Ms. Kassman's story is completely representative
of the treatment of women at KPMG," Siham Nurhussein said.  "Ms.
Kassman repeatedly complained up the chain of command about the
gender discrimination and harassment she was experiencing, and the
Company reacted with neither surprise nor concern.  Her
supervising Partner told her matter-of-factly that her male
colleague might have a problem working with women, and the Office
of Ethics and Compliance told Ms. Kassman that men had ganged up
on women at KPMG before.  KPMG not only tolerates gender
discrimination, but displays an active interest in perpetuating
it."

In addition to the systematic discrimination faced by female
Managers at KPMG, female employees with children also face
discrimination based on their status as caregivers and/or being
pregnant.  After she gave birth to her first child, Ms. Kassman's
career advancement at KPMG came to a screeching halt.  Without any
warning or provocation, KPMG abruptly cut her salary while she was
on maternity leave and placed her on a Performance Improvement
Plan upon her return to work.  Ms. Kassman felt that she had no
choice but to move to a "flexible" schedule, under which she
retained all the responsibilities of a full-time employee, but was
paid less.  KPMG frequently touted Ms. Kassman as a role model for
other working mothers, even though one of the Partners
acknowledged that women on flexible schedules were "not going to
get anywhere [at KPMG]."

Ms. Kassman resigned from KPMG in October 2010 because the
relentless gender discrimination and harassment had become
unbearable, and it was clear that the Company had no interest in
remedying the situation.

"As one of the 'Big Four,' KPMG helps set the industry standard
and pervasive discrimination against women should not be any
company's standard" said Deepika Bains.  "Our hope is that as a
result of this lawsuit, women will be able to join KPMG with
greater opportunity for success."

Ms. Kassman is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for
herself and the class, including back pay and front pay;
compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

                            About SWH

Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


LASER AMUSEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Post ATM Fee Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
class action has been filed against a New Orleans business for
failing to post notice of that there is a fee for withdrawing
money from its ATM.

Claiming violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Timothy
Foley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against Laser Amusement on May 24 in federal
court in New Orleans.

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act requires that ATM machines must
have a posted noticed attached on or at the machine informing
consumers of the imposition of an ATM surcharge.

Mr. Foley states he was charged a $3 fee to withdraw money from
the ATM located at Liuzza's By The Track on 1518 North Lopez on
March 29, 2011.

The plaintiff is asking for an award of actual and statutory
damages, attorney's fees, court costs and disgorgement of all
revenue.

Mr. Foley is represented Metairie attorney by Bruce C. Betzer.  He
may be reached at:

         THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE C. BETZER
         3129 Bore Street
         Metairie, LA 70001
         Tel: 504-264-9523
              866-603-3792
         Fax: 504-304-9964

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-01223


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Says Rating Agencies Equally to Blame in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that credit-rating agencies are equally to blame if the Federal
Court finds that Lehman Brothers Australia misled clients about
the meaning of ratings assigned to complex financial products, the
court heard on May 30.

A class action by local councils, charities and churches, which
has resumed after a two-month break, is seeking damages from the
Australian arm of the collapsed investment bank over losses
incurred on interest-bearing products known as synthetic
collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

One of the many allegations is that Lehman Brothers Australia did
not tell its clients that synthetic CDOs carrying a AAA credit
rating were not as secure as a floating-rate note issued by a bank
or a corporate bond carrying the same rating.

Lehman denies liability, but as a fallback position argues that if
Justice Steven Rares finds against it, it should only have to pay
a proportion of any damages awarded to the 72 members of the class
action.

In relation to the ratings allegation, it says it should pay only
50%.

On May 30, Lehman's barrister, John Sheahan, SC, said if the judge
agreed with the councils that Lehman should have said to them that
ratings on CDOs did not have the same meaning as ratings on other
products, "then we say the rating agencies were just as much to
blame".  He read to the court a publication by Standard & Poor's
which began: "Do ratings have the same meaning across sectors and
asset classes? The simple answer is 'yes'."

"If that's where some of our culpability lies, we say it lies as
well with the rating agencies," Mr. Sheahan said.

Questioned by Justice Rares about how Lehman communicated ratings
to clients, Mr. Sheahan said: "What we did was exactly what the
rating agencies intended, which was to pass those ratings to the
investors, expecting that they would rely on them and they did.

"It was the whole point of having published ratings that the
person who paid for the rating would be able to use it to
encourage people to invest in the product."

The agencies issued reports "with an intention, knowledge or
expectation that their ratings would be communicated to potential
investors".

The class action's barrister, Lachlan Armstrong, said Lehman and
its forerunner, Grange Securities, were under no misapprehension
about the ratings.

"There are representations from Grange saying 'we understand what
ratings mean, we have the resources to go behind it, we have
checked it, we have done our own modelling'," Mr. Armstrong said.

"You don't have the element of responsibility on the part of the
ratings agencies because Grange has knowingly passed on material
which should be qualified," he said.


MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Plaintiffs Appeal Class Decertification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit filed against
Mediacom LLC appealed from the opinion and order entered by the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, decertifying the class,
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 Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from
landowners to place the Company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.  While the parties continue to contest
liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure
of damages.  Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs
claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal
fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other
costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.
Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory
of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.  Notwithstanding the
verdict in the trial, the Company remains unable to reasonably
determine the amount of the Company's final liability in this
lawsuit.  Prior to trial the Company's experts estimated its
liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to
$2.3 million.  This estimate did not include any estimate of
damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive
damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.  On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000.  The Court did not enter a final judgment on
this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at
this time be judicially collected.  Although the Company believes
that the particular circumstances of each class member may result
in a different measure of damages for each member, if the same
measure of compensatory damages was used for each member, the
aggregate compensatory damages would be approximately $16.2
million plus the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.

On April 22, 2011, the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri
issued an opinion and order decertifying the class in this
putative class action.  A notice of appeal was filed by the
plaintiff on May 2, 2011 regarding the court's decertification of
the class and the court's refusal to award prejudgment interest on
the Gary and Janice Ogg judgment.  The Company says it will
vigorously defend this appeal as well as any claims made by the
other members of the purported class.

The Company believes that the amount of actual liability would not
have a significant effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations, cash flows or business.  There can be no
assurance, however, if the decision of the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri is reversed, that the actual liability ultimately
determined for all members of the class would not exceed the
Company's estimated range or any amount derived from the verdict
rendered on March 18, 2009.  The Company has tendered the lawsuit
to the Company's insurance carrier for defense and
indemnification.  The carrier has agreed to defend the Company
under a reservation of rights, and a declaratory judgment action
is pending regarding the carrier's defense and coverage
responsibilities.


MEDIACOM LLC: Hearing to Review MOU in Going Private Suits Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware convened a hearing
on June 6, 2011, to review the terms and conditions of settlement
in the memorandum of understanding among parties, which would
resolve the lawsuits arising from a transaction that made Mediacom
LLC's subsidiary, Mediacom Communications Corporation, private,
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 November 12, 2010, MCC entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, among MCC, JMC Communications LLC and Rocco B. Commisso,
MCC's founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who was also
the sole member and manager of JMC, for the purpose of taking MCC
private.

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

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

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

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

The director defendants, Mediacom, JMC Communications LLC and Mr.
Commisso, as defendants in the actions, have reached an agreement
in principle with the plaintiffs in all of the actions providing
for the settlement of the actions on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding, which terms
include, but are not limited to, a settlement payment made by
Mediacom on behalf of and for the benefit of the parties to the
actions in the amount of $0.25 per share for each share of
Mediacom common stock held by the plaintiff class as of March 4,
2011.  If the settlement becomes effective, the settlement payment
to the plaintiff class will be reduced by any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel.  The settlement is
subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive
settlement documentation and the approval of the Delaware Court.
A court date has been set for June 6, 2011 to review the terms and
conditions of settlement in the MOU.

The Company says it may have to distribute cash to MCC to
partially fund this settlement.  Upon effectiveness of the
settlement, the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims under federal and state law that were or could have been
asserted in the actions or which arise out of or relate to the
Going Private Transaction will be released.

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


MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Still Defends Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC's subsidiary, Mediacom Communications Corporation,
continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit currently
pending in New York, according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A purported class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which Mediacom Communications Corporation
is named as the defendant, was filed on March 4, 2010.  The
complaint asserts that the potential class is comprised of all
persons who purchased premium cable services from MCC and rented a
cable box distributed by MCC.  The plaintiff alleges that MCC
improperly "ties" the rental of cable boxes to the provision of
premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
MCC was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010.  MCC believes
they have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in the
complaint, and they intend to defend the action vigorously.  MCC
filed a Motion to Dismiss the action and the court recently ruled
adversely to MCC.  The case is now in the discovery/trial phase.

If MCC is not successful in this litigation, the Company says it
may have to distribute cash to MCC in order for MCC to pay any
damages in regard to this litigation.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nextwave Wireless Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
stockholders class action lawsuit in a California court, according
to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2,
2011.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to
August 7, 2008.  A second putative class action lawsuit captioned
"Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on
October 21, 2008 alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during an extended class period,
from November 27, 2006 through August 7, 2008.  On February 24,
2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two cases and
appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss that Amended Complaint.  On March 5, 2010, the
Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice,
permitting the lead plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.  On
March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the Motion now
has been fully briefed and is under submission to the court.  At
this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of
this litigation. The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on the Company's belief that a liability, while possible, is
not probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be
estimated at this time.

San Diego, Calif.-based NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding
company for a significant wireless spectrum portfolio.  The
Company's continuing operations are focused on the management of
its wireless spectrum interests.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., continues to await a court ruling on
its motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed by an
alleged shareholder, according to the Company's May 13, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A purported class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010, in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by an alleged shareholder of the Company, on behalf of himself and
all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock in the period between December 14, 2009 and
February 24, 2010, against the Company and its President and Chief
Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin.  On October 1, 2010, the court
appointed lead plaintiffs, Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald, and
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On October 22, 2010, an
amended complaint was filed.  The amended complaint claims that
the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in
connection with alleged disclosures related to the Phase 3
clinical trial of NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer.  On
December 6, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.  On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the Company's motion and on March 3,
2011, the Company filed its response to their opposition.  The
motion to dismiss remains pending.  The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to defend vigorously
against the allegations.

Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
developing compounds for the treatment of cancer.  On April 8,
2011, the Company entered into a business combination with
Cellectar, Inc., a privately held Wisconsin corporation that
designed and developed products to detect, treat and monitor a
wide variety of human cancers.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit in Calif. For Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
OCZ Technology Group, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
alleging that it engaged in certain deceptive practices, according
to the Company's May 31, 2011, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 28,
2011.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, alleging that certain of the
Company's solid state drives SSDs sold on or after January 1,
2011, did not meet certain performance criteria and as a result
the Company engaged in certain deceptive practices and violated
various laws.  Among other things, the lawsuit seeks unspecified
actual and compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement and injunctive and other equitable
relief.

The Company believes that the lawsuit has no merit and it intends
to vigorously defend against this litigation.


ORTHOVITA INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Pa. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Orthovita is
selling itself too cheaply to Stryker Corp., for $316 million or
$3.85 per share.

A copy of the Complaint in Clayton v. Orthovita, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-03535 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Sandra G. Smith, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com
                  ssmith@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


PEET'S COFFEE: Continues to Defend Wage Violation Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit alleging violations of the California Labor Code,
according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2011.

On February 23, 2010, a complaint was filed in Orange County
Superior Court by two former employees, on behalf of themselves
and all other non-exempt employees similarly situated in the state
of California naming the Company as a defendant. One of the
plaintiffs was removed by an amended complaint and the remaining
plaintiff alleges claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest
period premiums, unpaid business expenses, unpaid minimum wages,
untimely wages paid at time of termination, untimely payment of
wages, failure to pay vacation wages, violation of California
Business & Professions Code section 17200 and non-compliant wage
statements and seeks injunctive relief, restitution, monetary
damages, penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, costs and attorneys' fees, penalties, and
prejudgment interest.  At this time, it is not feasible to predict
the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this
proceeding.  The Company has previously settled two employment
related lawsuits certified as a class: 1) a $2.5 million
settlement in 2010 for a complaint filed by three former employees
on behalf of themselves and all other California store managers
alleging they were not paid overtime wages, were not provided meal
or rest periods, were not provided accurate wage statements and
were not reimbursed for business expenses, and 2) a $2.1 million
final settlement payment in 2004 of another class action lawsuit.

Founded in Berkeley, California in 1966, Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.
is a specialty coffee roaster and marketer of fresh, deep-roasted
whole bean coffee and tea sold through multiple channels of
distribution for home and away-from-home enjoyment.


PFIZER INC: Awaits Court Approval of King-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with
plaintiffs of a consolidated class action lawsuit over its
acquisition of King Pharmaceuticals, 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 April 3, 2011.

In October 2010, several purported class action complaints were
filed in federal and state court in Tennessee by shareholders of
King challenging Pfizer's acquisition of King. King and the
individuals who served as the members of King's Board of Directors
at the time of the execution of the merger agreement  are named as
defendants in all of these actions. Pfizer and Parker Tennessee
Corp., a subsidiary of Pfizer, also are named as defendants in
most of these actions.

In November 2010, all of the actions filed in state court were
consolidated in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee
Second Judicial District, at Bristol. The parties to the
consolidated state court action have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve that action as a result of certain
disclosures regarding the transaction made by King in its amended
Schedule 14D-9 recommendation statement for the tender offer dated
January 21, 2011. The proposed settlement is subject to, among
other things, court approval.

In April 2011, the plaintiff in the federal action filed a motion
to dismiss that action as moot.


PFIZER INC: High Court Denies Writ of Certiorari in Pharmacia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied in March 2011 plaintiffs' request
for a writ of certiorari in a class action lawsuit filed against
Pfizer, Inc., and other defendants, 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.

In 2006, several current and former employees of Pharmacia
Corporation filed a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the Pharmacia
Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia &
Upjohn Company and Pfizer Inc.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Plan
violates the age-discrimination provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by providing certain
credits to certain participants only to age 55. In June 2009, the
court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the claims against the Plan, Pfizer Inc. and the two
Pfizer subsidiaries. In July 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of the claims. In March 2011, the
U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari,
declining to hear an appeal of the Seventh Circuit's decision.


PFIZER INC: Calif. Court Certifies Hormone-Replacement Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited
liability companies, including Wyeth and King Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have
been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury or economic loss related
to the use or purchase of certain estrogen and progestin
medications primarily prescribed for women to treat the symptoms
of menopause.

The hormone-replacement litigation against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies includes a few purported statewide class
actions. In March 2011, in an action against Wyeth seeking the
refund of the purchase price paid for Wyeth's hormone-replacement
therapy products by individuals in the State of California during
the period from January 1995 to January 2003, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California certified a class
consisting of all individual purchasers of such products in
California who actually heard or read Wyeth's alleged
misrepresentations regarding such products. This is the only
hormone-replacement therapy action to date against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies in which a class has been certified,
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.

Pfizer and its affiliated companies have prevailed in many of the
hormone-replacement therapy actions that have been resolved to
date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary
judgment, defense verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict;
a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs.
Certain other hormone-replacement therapy actions have resulted in
verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of
compensatory and, in some instances, punitive damages; each of
these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies. The decisions in a few of the cases that had been
appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the
plaintiffs have been upheld by the appellate courts, while several
other cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies or by the plaintiffs have been remanded by the appellate
courts to their respective trial courts for further proceedings.
Trials of additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are
scheduled for 2011.

In addition, as of March 31, 2011, Pfizer and its affiliated
companies had settled, or entered into definitive agreements or
agreements-in-principle to settle, approximately one-third of the
hormone-replacement therapy actions pending against the Company
and its affiliated companies.  The Company has recorded aggregate
charges with respect to those actions, as well as with respect to
the actions that have resulted in verdicts against the Company or
its affiliated companies, of $172 million in the first quarter of
2011 and $300 million in previous quarters. In addition, the
Company has recorded a charge of $300 million in the first quarter
of 2011 that provides for the minimum expected costs to resolve
all of the other outstanding hormone-replacement therapy actions
against Pfizer and its affiliated companies, consistent with the
Company's current ability to quantify such future costs. The
foregoing charges are estimates and, given the uncertainties
inherent in product liability litigation, additional charges may
be required in the future.


PLANTRONICS INC: Appeal in Bluetooth Headset Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving a settlement in the lawsuits
alleging that Plantronics, Inc.'s Bluetooth headsets may cause
noise-induced hearing loss remains pending, according to the
Company's May 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 2, 2011.

Six class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company
alleging that its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced
hearing loss.  Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed
on November 14, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.  Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was
filed on October 20, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.  Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.
was filed on October 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida.  Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed
on February 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc. was
filed on January 10, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.  Bruce Schiller, et al vs.
Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 10, 2006, in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles.

The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal
injury to any individual.  These complaints seek various remedies,
including injunctive relief requiring the Company to include
certain additional warnings with its Bluetooth headsets and to
redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or,
alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to determine
the level of sound emitted from the headset.  Plaintiffs also seek
unspecified general, special, and punitive damages, as well as
restitution.  The federal cases have been consolidated for all
pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Los Angeles before Judge Fischer.  The California
State Court case was dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The parties
agreed in principle to settle their claims.  The U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Los Angeles signed an order
approving the final settlement of the lawsuit entitled In Re
Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation brought against
Plantronics, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and GN Netcom, Inc. alleging
that the three companies failed to adequately warn consumers of
the potential for long term noise induced hearing loss if they
used Bluetooth headsets.  The companies contested the claims of
the lawsuit but settled the lawsuit on a nationwide basis for an
amount which the Company believes is less than the cost of
litigating and winning the lawsuit.

On September 25, 2009, the Court signed a judgment in the case
resolving all matters except the issue of outstanding attorneys'
fees, which will be split among the three defendants.  On
October 22, 2009, the Court issued an order setting the class
counsel's attorneys' fees and costs and the incentive award at the
maximum amounts agreed to by the parties in their settlement.  The
objectors to the settlement have filed a notice of appeal, and the
appeal is in process.  The Company believes that any loss related
to these proceedings would not be material and has adequately
reserved for these costs in the consolidated financial statements.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Loan Note Buyers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by loan note purchasers in a California
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 March 31, 2011.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and its
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all loan
note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered
securities in violation of the California and federal securities
laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the
right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009 and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.  On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company, has denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay Prosper's past
and future defense costs in the class action suit up to $2
million.  On February 24, 2011, Greenwich made a payment to
Prosper in the amount of $1,728,273 to reimburse Prosper for the
defense costs it had already incurred in the class action suit.
Greenwich is required to reimburse Prosper for up to an additional
$271,727 in defense costs for the class action suit going forward.
Each such reimbursement will be due within 30 days of Prosper
incurring any such costs and presenting the applicable invoice to
Greenwich.  Greenwich is also required to pay Prosper pre-judgment
interest on the defense costs incurred by Prosper in the class
action suit prior to the Court's decision.  The amount of this
pre-judgment interest is $164,828.  Greenwich will be required to
make this pre-judgment interest payment to Prosper when a final
judgment has been entered in the insurance suit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the class action lawsuit
and vigorously prosecute its suit against Greenwich.  The Company
cannot, however, presently determine or estimate the final outcome
of either lawsuit, and there can be no assurance that either
matter will be finally resolved in its favor.  If the class action
lawsuit is not resolved in the Company's favor, it might be
obliged to pay damages, and might be subject to such equitable
relief as a court may determine.  If the Company's lawsuit against
Greenwich is not resolved in the Company's favor, it might not be
able to recover proceeds from Greenwich that are sufficient to
offset any losses the Company incurs in the class action lawsuit.

As of March 31, 2011, the lawsuits are in their preliminary stages
and their probable outcomes cannot presently be determined, nor
can the amount of damages or other costs that might be borne by
Prosper be estimated.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. -- http://www.prosper.com/-- is a peer-
to-peer lending marketplace, with more than 1,050,000 members and
over $225,000,000 in funded loans.  Prosper allows people to
invest in each other in a way that is financially and socially
rewarding.  On Prosper, borrowers list loan requests between
$2,000 and $25,000 and individual lenders invest as little as $25
in each loan listing they select. Prosper handles the funding and
servicing of the loan on behalf of the matched borrowers and
investors.  Prosper was co-founded by Chris Larsen, who also co-
founded E-LOAN. Prosper has raised $57.7 million in venture
capital and is backed by financial and technology luminaries
including Jim Breyer of Accel Partners, Omidyar Network, Capital
One Co-founder Nigel Morris of QED Investors, Court Coursey of
TomorrowVentures, CompuCredit, and Volition Capital.


QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving the settlement in the class
action lawsuit against QuickLogic Corporation in connection with
the Company's public offerings remain pending, according to its
May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2011.

On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's
initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's
officers and directors.  The complaint alleges excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary
public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in"
arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of
the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's
stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  Various plaintiffs have filed similar
actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300
other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and
directors arising out of each company's public offering.  These
actions, including the action against QuickLogic, have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities
Litigation.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company
will bear no financial liability.  The Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.
Certain objectors have filed appeals.  No hearing date has been
set.  The Company did not accrue any amounts related to the
proposed settlement because it was not reasonably estimable.


REHABCARE GROUP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Kindred Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabcare Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiffs of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
its stockholders over its merger with Kindred Healthcare, Inc.,
according to a May 12, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

RehabCare, the members of RehabCare's board of directors and
Kindred have been named as defendants in certain actions filed on
behalf of RehabCare stockholders challenging the proposed merger
of Kindred and RehabCare. On February 15, 2011, the Norfolk County
Retirement System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred; on
February 28, 2011, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred; and on March 4, 2011, Plumbers
& Pipefitters National Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of
RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred.

On March 9, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware
litigation under the caption In re RehabCare Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation and plaintiffs filed a verified
consolidated class action complaint on April 5, 2011. Defendants
commenced document production on March 30, 2011 and substantially
completed it by April 22, 2011. Depositions took place between
April 28, 2011 and May 11, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation
regarding the settlement of the Delaware litigation. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, (i) Kindred and RehabCare agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, (ii)
RehabCare agreed to make the payment, at and subject to the
closing of the merger between Kindred and RehabCare, of
$2,500,000.00 (two million five hundred thousand dollars) in cash
into a settlement pool for the benefit of the plaintiff class in
In re RehabCare Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, to be
distributed after final approval of the settlement of the Delaware
Litigation and (iii) Kindred, Kindred Healthcare Development, Inc.
and RehabCare agreed to enter into the amendment, dated May 12,
2011, to the merger agreement, dated as of February 7, 2011, among
Kindred, Kindred Healthcare Development, Inc. and RehabCare, the
material terms of which are:

   * Inclusion of an acknowledgement by Kindred and RehabCare of
     the waiver of any existing standstill undertakings for the
     benefit of RehabCare;

   * Change of the definition of "Company Termination Fee" to mean
     "an amount equal to $13,000,000.00"; and

   * Modification of the agreement to eliminate the requirement
     for a three-business day period during which Kindred has the
     right to match a superior proposal

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to RehabCare's stockholders. In
the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement,
a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware litigation
will file petitions for the award of attorneys' fees and expenses
to be paid by RehabCare and/or its successor(s) in interest.
RehabCare (and/or its successor(s) in interest) shall pay or cause
to be paid such award(s) of attorneys' fees and expenses. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT JUICE: June 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 20, 2011, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against SkyPeople Fruit Juice,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SPU). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price.
The class period is from March 31, 2010 through April 4, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the
Court no later than Monday, June 20, 2011, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class.  However, in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         K. Lynn Nunn, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         E-mail to: kln@federmanlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SUNOPTA INC: "Vargas" Suit Settlement Terms Yet To Be Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee filed
a wage and hour dispute against SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of SunOpta, Inc., as a class action
alleging various violations of California's labour laws. A
tentative settlement of all claims was reached at mediation on
January 15, 2010 and the parties executed a settlement agreement
resolving all claims of the class. The terms of the proposed
settlement are still to be finalized by the court. As a result of
the tentative settlement, the Company accrued a liability of
$1,200,000 as at December 31, 2009 which remains in accounts
payable and accrued liabilities at April 2, 2011, 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 2, 2011.


SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Amended Class Action Complaint in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunpower Corporation is facing an amended class action complaint
filed by a group of investors in California, according to the
Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3,
2011.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through
November 16, 2009.  The cases were consolidated as Plichta v.
SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.

The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.  The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011.
An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011.  The Company is
currently unable to determine if the resolution of these matters
will have an adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
liquidity or results of operations.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Leonel Garza against Swift
Transportation Company remains pending in an Arizona 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
March 31, 2011.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472.  The putative class originally involved
certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a
2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year.  The
putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed
owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted
and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.
The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.  On November 14, 2008,
the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence
of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of
Appeals.  On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona
Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining
that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction
to reverse the trial court's original denial of class
certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further evaluation and determination.  Thereafter, plaintiff
renewed his motion for class certification and expanded it to
include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers
or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after
January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference
to miles driven.  On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial
court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and
expanding the class to include employees.  The Company filed a
petition for review to the Arizona Court of Appeals to dismiss
class certification, urging dismissal on several grounds
including, but not limited to, the lack of an employee class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a 3-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists.  The
Company intends to pursue all available appellate relief supported
by the record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the
class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised
have no merit or are subject to mandatory arbitration.  The
Maricopa County trial court's decision pertains only to the issue
of class certification, and the Company retains all of its
defenses against liability and damages.  The final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com--
hauls freight throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company
operates a fleet of about 18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from
a network of more than 30 terminals.  Swift serves as a core
carrier for several large shippers, transporting goods such as
paper products, nonperishable foods, building materials, and
retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other
specialized trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal
containers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Driving Academy Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself in class
action lawsuits involving its driving academy, 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 March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division.  The putative class involves former students of the
Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against
the Company for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses
or CDLs and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former
students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The
allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or
TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity
of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the
Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee.  The
Company has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint.  The Company has
also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or
the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that the
Company did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the
complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the
Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege
wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to
any recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's
motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by
the court. The issue of class certification must first be resolved
before the court will address the merits of the case, and the
Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively:
Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or
the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen
Complaint.  Both putative class action complaints involve former
students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are
seeking relief against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor
vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and
any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by
the relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint.  The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not.  The Company
denies the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intend to
vigorously defend its position.  The McAlarnen Complaint has been
dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has
elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing
of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages.  The
Company has filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint.  The
Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for
a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in any
wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for
injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class
action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in
the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint.  The two matters
are (i) Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of
the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed
on May 7, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and (ii) Marylene
Broadnax on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Swift Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on
May 22, 2009 in the Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of
Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint.  While the Ham Complaint, the
Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in
federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state
court.  As with all of these related complaints, the Company has
filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner
for a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in
any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for
injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

The portion of the Lott complaint against the Commissioner has
been dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement reached
between the approximately 138 Lott class members and the
Commissioner granting the class members 90 days to retake the test
for their CDL.

In connection with the class action lawsuits, on June 21, 2009,
the Company filed a Petition for Access to Public Records against
the Commissioner.  Since the inception of these class action
lawsuits, the Company has made numerous requests to the TDOS for
copies of any records that may have given rise to TDOS questioning
the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of
Tennessee.  As a consequence of TDOS's failure to provide any such
information, the Company filed a petition against TDOS for
violation of Tennessee's Public Records Act.  In response to the
Company's petition for access to public records, TDOS delivered
certain documents to it.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of
the class for all of the class action lawsuits as well as the
allegations made by the plaintiffs should the class be certified.
For the consolidated case, the issue of class certification must
first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the
case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against
liability and damages pending a determination of class
certification.  Based on its knowledge of the facts and advice of
outside counsel, management does not believe the outcome of this
litigation is likely to have a material adverse effect on the
Company; however, the final disposition of this case and the
impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com--
hauls freight throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company
operates a fleet of about 18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from
a network of more than 30 terminals.  Swift serves as a core
carrier for several large shippers, transporting goods such as
paper products, nonperishable foods, building materials, and
retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other
specialized trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal
containers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Remains Pending in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Joseph Sheer against Swift
Transportation Company remains pending in an Arizona 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
March 31, 2011.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc.,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Sheer Complaint.  The putative class involves owner-
operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-
operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, of FLSA and various New York and
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees.  The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL.  At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former
owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.  Upon the Company's
motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court in Arizona.  On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action
and authorize notice to the potential class members.  On June 23,
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from
plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and
related relief.  On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted
Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class
action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.  The court
further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and
motion for conditional class certification.  The Court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.  The
plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that
the District Court's order be vacated.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against any arbitration proceedings.  The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com--
hauls freight throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company
operates a fleet of about 18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from
a network of more than 30 terminals.  Swift serves as a core
carrier for several large shippers, transporting goods such as
paper products, nonperishable foods, building materials, and
retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other
specialized trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal
containers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by John Burnell against Swift
Transportation Company remains stayed pending resolution of
similar proceedings, 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 March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.  On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the United States District Court for the central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP.  The putative
class includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four
years preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company
failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide
proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon
separation from employment.  The Burnell Complaint is currently
subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar
issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which is
currently pending before the California Supreme Court.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class as
well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com--
hauls freight throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company
operates a fleet of about 18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from
a network of more than 30 terminals.  Swift serves as a core
carrier for several large shippers, transporting goods such as
paper products, nonperishable foods, building materials, and
retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other
specialized trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal
containers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Michael Sanders against Swift
Transportation Company remains stayed pending resolution of
similar proceedings, 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 July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation and IEL: Michael Sanders
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case
No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint.  The putative class involves
both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing
claims against Swift and IEL.  Many of the claims alleged by both
the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of
employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer
Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell
Complaint -- John Burnell and all others similarly situated v.
Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of
San Bernardino -- as it relates to employee drivers.  As alleged
in the Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-
operators of Swift during the four years preceding the date of
filing alleging that Swift misclassified owner-operators as
independent contractors in violation of the federal FLSA and
various California state laws and that such owner-operators should
be considered employees.  As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint,
the owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.  As alleged in
the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint
includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate
wage statement upon separation from employment, and failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment.  The Sanders
Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-
operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not
also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell
Complaint.  These separate owner-operator claims allege that Swift
failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly
compensate for waiting times.  The separate employee driver claims
allege that Swift failed to reimburse business expenses and
coerced driver employees to patronize the employer.  The Sanders
Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but
not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which
is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint.
Upon the Company's motion, the Sanders Complaint has been
transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County
of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Sanders matter is currently subject
to a stay of proceedings pending determinations in other unrelated
appellate cases that seek to address similar issues.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com--
hauls freight throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company
operates a fleet of about 18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from
a network of more than 30 terminals.  Swift serves as a core
carrier for several large shippers, transporting goods such as
paper products, nonperishable foods, building materials, and
retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other
specialized trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal
containers.


SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against SWK Holdings
Corporation remains pending, 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.

In July 2001, the Company, its underwriters, and certain officers
and directors were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit.  This case is one of several hundred similar cases
that have been consolidated into a single action.  The complaint
alleges misstatements and omissions concerning underwriters'
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  In February 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss
that would have disposed of the claims against the Company.  A
settlement proposal, which did not admit wrongdoing, had been
approved by the Board and preliminarily approved by the Court.
While the parties' request for court approval of the settlement
was pending, in December 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's finding that six focus cases could be certified
as class actions.  In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the
District Court might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26,
2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed
settlement as stipulated among the parties.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases, which was withdrawn on October 10, 2008.  On November 13,
2007 defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court denied
in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including the
Company), the underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers
for the defendants, engaged in mediation and settlement
negotiations.  They reached a settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier agreed to assume the Company's entire payment
obligation under the terms of the settlement.

On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement agreement.  After a September 10, 2009
hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement
on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
from the District Court's order granting final approval of the
settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the Company says there can be no guarantee
that it will not be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to these claims.  If the settlement is
not implemented and the litigation continues against the Company,
the Company would continue to defend against this action
vigorously.


TASTY BAKING: Enters Into MOU in Merger-Related Suits in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company entered into a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiffs in purported class action lawsuits arising from
the proposed merger between the Company and Flowers Foods, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 12, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Complaints were filed on April 21, 2011, April 27, 2011 and
April 29, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania in the matters, respectively, of Michelsen
and Enochs v. Tasty Baking Company, et al. (No. 11-04-02487), Paul
F. Ringheiser III  v. Tasty Baking Company, et al. (No. 11-04-
02927), and Joan Taylor v. Tasty Baking Company, et al. (No. 11-
05-00004).  The plaintiffs in the Litigation Matters alleged,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
their approval of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
April 10, 2011 by and among Tasty, Flowers Foods, Inc., a Georgia
corporation and Compass Merger Sub, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation (as assignee of Flowers Bakeries, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company) or Merger Sub, which contemplates a
tender offer by Merger Sub to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Company, and as soon as practicable
after the consummation of the Offer and subject to the
satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, for Merger Sub to merge with and into Tasty with Tasty
surviving such merger.  The plaintiffs also alleged that the
Company, Flowers and Flowers Bakeries, LLC aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 27, 2011, the Company's Board of Directors also received
a written shareholder litigation demand on behalf of a
shareholder, David Raul, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the Company's Board of Directors and management in connection with
the Offer and the Merger, and demanding that the Board of
Directors take action to ensure that the consideration provided in
the Offer is fair to Tasty and its shareholders, and to otherwise
recover, for the Company's benefit, the damages described in the
Demand.  The Demand threatened that Mr. Raul would commence a
shareholder derivative suit on behalf of Tasty absent immediate
action by the Board of Directors to that effect.  To the Company's
knowledge, no complaint has been filed in connection with this
Demand.

On May 11, 2011, a Stipulation to Consolidate was filed with the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania with
regard to the Litigation Matters.  If approved by the Court, this
will consolidate these proceedings before the Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The consolidated action
will be entitled In re Tasty Baking Company Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 11-04-02487.

The defendants named in the Consolidated Action believe that the
Consolidated Action is entirely without merit, and that they have
valid defenses to all claims raised by David Raul and the
plaintiffs named in the Consolidated Action.  Nevertheless, to
avoid the costs, disruption and distraction associated with such
litigation, on May 11, 2011, the Defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiffs.  Under the MOU,
the Plaintiffs and the purported class of the Company's
shareholders they represent will dismiss the Consolidated Action
with prejudice, withdraw the Demand and discharge and release the
Defendants, their agents, advisors and certain affiliated parties
from and against all direct, derivative, legal or equitable
claims, known and unknown, that are based on, arise out of or
relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to the allegations and
claims in the Consolidated Action, the Demand, the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the negotiations and
deliberations related to the Merger Agreement, the various public
filings relating to the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and certain other potential legal or equitable claims
described more fully in the MOU.  In exchange for such settlement
and release, the parties agreed, after arm's-length discussions
between and among the Defendants and Plaintiffs, that the Company
would provide additional supplemental disclosures to the Schedule
14D-9 filed by the Company with the SEC on April 21, 2011, as
amended pursuant to an Amendment No. 1 filed by the Company with
the SEC on April 25, 2011 and Amendment No. 2 filed by the Company
with the SEC on May 2, 2011 (these additional supplemental
disclosures being set forth in an Amendment No. 3 to the
Statement), although the Company does not make any admission that
such additional supplemental disclosures are material as a matter
of law or in the context of a shareholder's decision to tender
Shares into and accept the Offer.  After reaching agreement on the
substantive terms of the settlement, the parties also agreed that
the Plaintiffs may apply to the court for an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and that the Company, or its
successor, will pay to Plaintiffs' counsel an amount not more than
$250,000 as is approved by court order.  The settlement, including
the payment by the Defendants of any such fees and expenses, is
also contingent upon, among other things, consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and the approval
of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
The MOU recognizes, among other things, that the parties will
cooperate and use their best efforts to execute a Stipulation of
Settlement and present the Stipulation of Settlement and such
other documentation as may be required by the court within forty-
five (45) days from the date of the MOU in order to obtain court
approval of the settlement.

The MOU provides that the Company and the members of its Board of
Directors deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, deny that they
committed any violation of law or acted improperly in any way, and
they believe that they acted properly at all times and that the
Consolidated Action has no merit, but wish to settle the
Consolidated Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation. In the event that the MOU is
not approved and the conditions described are not satisfied, the
Defendants will continue to vigorously defend the Consolidated
Action.

Tasty Baking Company (NasdaqNM: TSTY) is one of the country's
leading bakers of snack cakes, pies, cookies, and donuts.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Philips" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss
a purported class action lawsuit filed by James L. Phillips in
North Carolina, according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2009, James L. Phillips served a complaint against
the Company, Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the United
States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.  The
plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between
October 26, 2006 and April 1, 2008 and the complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws by the Company and two of
its present or former officers.  The court appointed lead counsel
for the plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on June 22,
2009.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 21, 2009 and the plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.  The
Company's reply was filed on November 19, 2009 and oral arguments
on the motion occurred on August 30, 2010.  The court has not yet
issued its opinion.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

Triad Guaranty Inc. is a holding company which, through its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, is
a nationwide mortgage guaranty insurer pursuing a run-off of its
existing in-force book of business.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Outcome of Motions to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court order on
motions to dismiss its lawsuit against American Home Mortgage,
according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On September 4, 2009, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation filed a
complaint against AHM in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware seeking rescission of multiple master
mortgage guaranty insurance policies and declaratory relief.  The
complaint seeks relief from AHM as well as all owners of loans
insured under the master policies by way of a defendant class
action.  Triad alleged that AHM failed to follow the delegated
insurance underwriting guidelines approved by Triad, that this
failure breached the master policies as well as the implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and that these breaches
were so substantial and fundamental that the intent of the master
policies could not be fulfilled and Triad should be excused from
its obligations under the master policies. Three groups of current
owners and/or servicers of AHM-originated loans filed motions to
intervene in the lawsuit, which were granted by the Court on
May 10 and October 29, 2010.  On March 4, 2011, Triad amended its
complaint to add a count alleging fraud in the inducement.  On
March 25, 2011, each of the interveners filed a motion to dismiss.
The total amount of risk originated under the AHM master policies,
accounting for any applicable stop loss limits associated with
Modified Pool contracts and less risk originated on policies which
have been subsequently rescinded, was $1.4 billion, of which $0.8
billion remained in force at March 31, 2011.  Triad continues to
accept premiums and process claims under the master policies, with
the earned premiums and settled losses reflected in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations.  However, as a result of
the litigation, Triad ceased remitting claim payments to companies
servicing loans originated by AHM and the liability for losses
settled but not paid is included in "Accrued expenses and other
liabilities" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Triad has not
recognized any benefit in its financial statements pending the
outcome of the litigation.

Triad Guaranty Inc. is a holding company which, through its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, is
a nationwide mortgage guaranty insurer pursuing a run-off of its
existing in-force book of business.


UNITED STATES: Williamtown RAAF Base to Face Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeannette McMahon, writing for ABC Newcastle, reports that a
meeting will be held soon for Port Stephens residents interested
in joining a class action over aircraft noise from Williamtown
RAAF Base.  The aim is to seek compensation both for an expected
increase in sound levels with the arrival of the Joint Strike
Fighters, and for people already affected by existing operations.

In 2018 the FA-18 Hornets at Williamtown will be replaced by 100
F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and there have been reports that the
new superjets will be twice as loud as those they're replacing.

The government and defense departments have previously said such
concerns are not necessarily justified, and noise levels will
depend very much on how the aircraft is operated.

That's not slowing down the class action, though, with a date
being set for an upcoming residents' meeting.

Taking on the case is Goodman Law, and 1233's Aaron Kearney spoke
to Steven Gavagna from the firm.

Mr. Gavagna explained that his firm first became involved when
they lodged an application from a local resident to the council to
develop a parcel of land.

"It became quickly apparent that the noise levels of the
introduction of the new JSF were going to significantly affect how
and when any future development would occur," he says.

Mr. Gavagna says the claim covers three groups, including those
who have land and want to develop it, existing residents who may
be affected by noise from the new Joint Strike Fighters, and those
already affected by increasing noise levels from Williamtown
operations.

"And they lose the amenity, that is, can't go into their backyard
to have a barbecue, can't sit in their lounge room and watch the
television under normal circumstances," he says.

It's not a fight to stop the new jets but to have those affected
properly compensated, Mr. Gavagna says.

"A class action is a common cause, and the common cause is the
noise levels," he says.

"This is a novel action, it will be one of the first times the
Commonwealth is brought to question about how it could adequately
compensate those that are affected by its actions."

In a few weeks there will be a mediation session with the
Commonwealth, and the next residents' meeting will be held on
June 15 at the Raymond Terrace Bowling Club.

The meeting will help determine how many people are interested in
taking part in the class action, how and when the costs of the
action will be covered, and explain how these types of cases run.

"They're complex, they take years," Mr. Gavagna says.

And he predicts that the Commonwealth, with its deep pockets, will
drag the case out as long as possible.

Aaron's 1233 ABC Newcastle Breakfast program has sought comment
from the Williamtown RAAF Base, so far with no response.


VERTRO INC: Appeal From Fraud Suit's Final Judgment Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida's final judgment in favor of Vertro, Inc., and
all defendants in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit remains
pending, 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.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of the Company.  Plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during
the putative class period, the Company made certain misleading
statements and omitted material information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  The Plaintiffs have filed
an appeal of the motion of summary judgment ruling.  Oral argument
of the appeal was held on November 17, 2010.

Regardless of the outcome, the Company says this litigation could
have a material adverse impact on its results because of defense
costs, including costs related to its indemnification obligations,
diversion of management's attention and resources, and other
factors.


WAL-MART: Judge Sells Shares to Take Part in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Long Island Business News reports that last year Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer sold between $15,000 and $50,000 in Wal-
Mart shares, presumably so that he could take part in the Supreme
Court's consideration of the case involving what could be the
largest employment discrimination class action lawsuit in American
history.

Bloomberg reports that the sale was revealed in financial
disclosure forms released by Judge Breyer on May 27.  That sale
came before the Court considered the case Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes
to determine whether a group of 1.5 million current and former
retail store employees can assert claims of systemic employment
gender bias as a class action.  A decision in that case is still
pending.


WAL-MART: Law Firms File Class Action Over Gift Receipt Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following their investigation of Wal-Mart's gift receipt policy,
the national class action law firms of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff,
LLP, Wexler Wallace, LLP, and Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell,
Brayton, Konecky filed a national class action lawsuit on June 1
against Wal-Mart stores.

The firms spent significant time investigating complaints that the
stores were not honoring the purchase price of the merchandise
when a person who receives the gift uses their gift receipt to
return it.  According to those complaints, if the item purchased
is on sale when the recipient returns it, they will only be given
credit for the sale price -- not the original price paid, which
most consumers presume is noted on their gift receipt.  In fact,
the price paid for the gift is never included on a Wal-Mart gift
receipt.

"It really is a 'perfect' rip-off," says consumer advocate and KCR
partner, Bill Kershaw.  "It's considered bad manners to ask
someone how much they paid for your birthday present and only a
social boor says, 'Hey, you know I spent $30 on your gift?'"

Mr. Kershaw noted that they've spoken to several consumers who
were shorted by the gift receipt practice, but that there are
likely thousands more who are completely unaware that their gift
cost more than what they were credited.  This is particularly true
given the nature of the alleged scheme.

"Wal-Mart's scheme to defraud relies on the fact that people
generally have good manners and would never ask how much their
gift giver paid for their present," he adds.  "Further, rarely
does the recipient tell the person who gave them the gift that
they didn't like it and therefore returned it.  It takes fairly
unusual circumstances for the giver or the receiver to discover
that they are being short changed by Wal-Mart and even then, most
people won't make a stink.  So it truly is the perfect scam and
99% of people never know there's been a rip off."

Case No. 2:11-cv-01487-LKK-DAD filed in the Eastern District of
California

Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff represents injured plaintiffs in
consumer fraud, defective products and class actions, as well as
disability insurance bad faith.  As avid consumer advocates, they
have demonstrated their ability to devote substantial resources
through lawsuits involving large corporations and have generated
hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries for their clients
and the classes they have represented.
Re-boot your earnings!

To schedule an interview with an attorney from either firm, please
contact:

For Bill Kershaw of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, contact Taryn
Smith at 916-448-9800

For Mark Tamblyn of Wexler Wallace, call 916-492-1100

For Todd Schnieder or Mark Johnson of Schneider, Wallace,
Cottrell, Brayton, Konecky, call 415-421-7100


WILMINGTON TRUST: Settlement Still Subject to Discovery & Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmington Trust Corporation disclosed that a proposed settlement
to resolve a consolidated purported class action filed by
stockholders of the Company is still subject to completion of
confirmatory discovery and court approval, according to the
Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 1, 2010, the Company announced that it signed a
definitive merger agreement with M&T Bank Corporation. In the
merger, the Company's common stockholders will receive 0.051372
shares of M&T common stock for each share of the Company's common
stock they hold. The Company's outstanding Series A Preferred
Stock issued to the U.S. Department of the Treasury under the CPP
will be exchanged for one-one hundredth (1/100) of a share of M&T
preferred stock with substantially the same rights, powers, and
preferences, and the warrants issued to the U.S. Department of the
Treasury in connection with the issuance of the Series A Preferred
Stock will be converted automatically into a warrant to purchase
M&T common stock, subject to appropriate adjustments. The merger
agreement contains certain customary covenants restricting the
conduct of the Company's business, other than in the ordinary
course consistent with past practice, until the closing of the
merger. The closing of the merger is subject to certain
conditions, including approval by the Company's stockholders and
regulators. The Company's stockholders approved the merger on
March 22, 2011 and it has obtained all necessary approvals to
close the merger from its regulators.  On May 16, 2011, M&T Bank
Corporation completed its acquisition of Wilmington Trust
Corporation.  Wilmington Trust and all of its subsidiaries are now
part of the M&T organization.

On November 5, 2010, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Medich
v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5958 (Del. Ch.)
and Yi v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5959
(Del. Ch.). On November 9, 2010, a third purported stockholder of
Wilmington Trust Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court
of Chancery captioned Burie v. Foley, et al., C.A. No. 5970 (Del.
Ch.). On December 8, 2010, these complaints were consolidated
under the caption In re Wilmington Trust Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 5958-VCL (Del. Ch.). On December 10, 2010,
the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint
(Consolidated Complaint). On December 20, 2010, the defendants
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, each
of the current members of its Board of Directors (Director
Defendants), M&T Bank Corporation, and MTB One, Inc (Merger Sub).
It is brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
common stockholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action. The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the
merger, and also alleges that M&T and Merger Sub aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty. It further alleges that the
director defendants improperly favored M&T and discouraged
alternative bids by agreeing to the merger agreement's no-
solicitation provision, termination fee provision, and
notification clause. In addition, the Consolidated Complaint
claims that the consideration to be received by the Company's
common stockholders is inadequate and unfair. Finally, the
Consolidated Complaint claims that the Form S-4 filed by the
defendants in connection with the merger omits material
information. It alleges deficiencies in the descriptions of
negotiations with interested parties, failure to disclose the
identity of one financial advisor and the fees payable to all
financial advisors, and failure to adequately explain the
financial advisors' valuation analyses.

On February 9, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger. After
substantial discovery, on March 3, 2011, the parties entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this action, pursuant to
which defendants disclosed additional information requested by the
plaintiffs in connection with the stockholder vote on the merger.
The proposed settlement is subject to completion of confirmatory
discovery and Court approval.

Wilmington Trust Corporation, a financial holding company
headquartered in Delaware, is a relationship management company
that helps individual and institutional clients increase and
preserve their wealth.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmington Trust Corporation is awaiting a federal court's ruling
on a plaintiff's motion to consolidate lawsuits filed in
connection with the Wilmington Trust Thrift Savings Plan in
Delaware, according to the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On December 20, 2010, participants in the Wilmington Trust Thrift
Savings Plan (the Plan) filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Outten, et
al., v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10-1114-SD
(D. Del.) (Outten Lawsuit). On January 31, 2011, another
participant in the Plan filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Gray v.
Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 11-cv-00101-SD (D.
Del.) (Gray Lawsuit). Both lawsuits name as defendants Wilmington
Trust FSB, Wilmington Trust Company, the Wilmington Trust
Corporation Employee Benefits Committee, and certain executive
officers and employees who are alleged to have served on the
Committee at some time from January 1, 2008, to the present for
the Outten Lawsuit, and from December 31, 2006 to December 31,
2010 for the Gray Lawsuit. The Gray Lawsuit also names as a
defendant a former director and executive officer of Wilmington
Trust.

These lawsuits are brought on behalf of a purported class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan whose Plan accounts
were invested in the Company's stock during the Class Periods. The
complaints allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by failing to act solely in the
interest of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, and by
failing to exercise the required skill and care in administering
the Plan and its assets during the Class Periods. The complaints
claim that the defendants allowed investment of the Plan's assets
in the Company's common stock throughout the Class Periods,
despite the fact that the defendants knew, or should have known,
that such investment was not a suitable investment for the Plan.
The complaints further allege that the defendants failed to
provide them with necessary information regarding Wilmington Trust
FSB's financial condition, and that the defendants placed their
own pecuniary interests above the interests of the Plan's
participants. The defendants also are alleged to have failed to
share information regarding Wilmington Trust FSB with the
fiduciaries of the Plan and failed to monitor the fiduciaries.

These lawsuits seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages in
the form of Plan losses, and an award of attorneys' fees.
On February 28, 2011, plaintiff Gray moved to consolidate the
cases, and to appoint interim co-lead class counsel and liaison
counsel. On March 14, 2011, plaintiffs Bradford and Outten moved
to consolidate the cases and to appoint interim counsel. As of
May 13, 2011, the Court had not yet ruled on these motions.

The Company believes the claims asserted are without merit and
intend to defend vigorously against these lawsuits.

Wilmington Trust Corporation, a financial holding company
headquartered in Delaware, is a relationship management company
that helps individual and institutional clients increase and
preserve their wealth.


WOODSTOCK PERCUSSION: Recalls 10,100 Musical Shakers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Woodstock Percussion Inc., of Shokan, New York,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,400 units of Gripper
Shaker musical instrument in the United States of America and 700
in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The handle can detach from the shaker, exposing a rough edge and
posing a laceration hazard.  The detached handle also exposes
small steel pellets and a plastic plug which pose choking hazards.

The company received one report from a consumer that the handles
on two Gripper Shakers detached.  No injuries have been reported.

The shakers are plastic musical instruments, 5.5 inches long, with
rounded, egg-shaped tops containing steel pellets and open
circular handles.  They come in blue and green and are sold
separately.  The marking "B4" is printed on the rounded top of
each shaker.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11238.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mail-
order catalogs, Web site and retail stores nationwide between
August 2010 and March 2011 for about $5.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
Woodstock Percussion Inc. to receive a $7 refund.  For additional
information, contact Woodstock Percussion, Inc. toll free at (866)
543-2848 anytime, via e-mail at safety@chimes.com, or visit the
Web site at http://www.woodstockpercussion.com/


WVS FINANCIAL: Final Hearing on Class Settlement Set for June 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of a settlement structured
as a class action entered by WVS Financial Corp.'s subsidiary and
plaintiff Matthew Dragotta will be on June 16, 2011, according to
the Company's May 13, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

The Company previously reported, under Item 3(a) of its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, a
lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Matthew Dragotta against the Company's
subsidiary West View Savings Bank. The Plaintiff alleged that West
View Savings Bank failed to comply with the notification
requirements of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1693 et. Seq. before a bank can impose a transaction fee
for the use of an automated teller machine. On August 24, 2009
U.S. District Judge, Terrance P. McVerry issued an order granting
the Bank's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
Reconsideration of Judge McVerry's order granting the Bank's
motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.  On October 16, 2009, Judge McVerry
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

On November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appealing
Judge McVerry's orders of September 3 and October 16, 2009.

On September 28, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated Judge McVerry's orders and remanded the case
to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the
Savings Bank agreed to settle this lawsuit. The settlement will be
structured as a class action. In connection with the settlement,
the Savings Bank agreed to refund ATM fees collected and to pay a
negotiated amount of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees and
litigation costs. The Savings Bank decided to settle this lawsuit
for $81 thousand in order to avoid the costs of protracted
litigation. In connection with the settlement, the Savings Bank
recorded a non-recurring charge of $81,000 during the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

On March 7, 2011, U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry issued
an order preliminarily approving a class action settlement,
directed the dissemination of notice and set a final settlement
hearing date for June 16, 2011.

WVS Financial Corp. is the parent holding company of West View
Savings Bank. The Company was organized in July 1993 as a
Pennsylvania-chartered unitary bank holding company and acquired
100% of the common stock of the Savings Bank in November 1993.


YONGYE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Yongye International, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in
New York commenced on behalf of all purchasers of its common stock
between August 11, 2010, and May 11, 2011, according to the
Company's May 31, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 27, 2011, the Company became aware that a class action
lawsuit had been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between the dates of August 11, 2010, and
May 11, 2011.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York as case no. 11-CV-
3616.  The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
present and former officers, directors, and control persons
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company has not yet filed any formal response to the claims.
The Company believes the claims are without merit, and plans to
vigorously defend itself against the claims.


ZYNEX INC: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
Zynex Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit in Colorado, according to the Company's May 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on
April 6, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et
al.).  On April 9 and 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits
alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).  The
consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement by
the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and on July 5, 2010, the Company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On March 30, 2011, the United
States District Court of Colorado entered an Order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations are without
merit and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.  The
Company has notified its directors and officers liability insurer
of the claim.  At this time, the Company is not able to determine
the likely outcome of the legal matter nor can it estimate its
potential financial exposure.  Litigation is subject to inherent
uncertainties, and if an unfavorable resolution of any of these
matters occurs, the Company's business, results of operations, and
financial condition could be adversely affected.


                             *********

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  * * *