CAR_Public/110608.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 112

                             Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Disability Benefits Suit
BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Suit in Georgia
CENTRAL PACIFIC: Continues to Defend "Peterson" Suit in Hawaii
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Human Rights Class Action
DE BEERS: Judge Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed

DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Expects Ruling on "Womack" Suit Deal This Summer
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeals
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Walgreen-Related Suits
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Okay of Deal Resolving Wage-Hour Suits

DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Wage & Hour Suit in Washington Remains Pending
ENCORE CAPITAL: State AGs Oppose Class Action Settlement
FARMERS INSURANCE: SC Upholds $8-Mil. Class Action Judgment
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
GS FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Merger With Home Bancorp

KOSS CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS AUSTRALIA: Did Not Break Any Law, Court Says
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Third Customer Data Breach Class Action
MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Brake Invoices
MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Franchisee Class Suit in Canada

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Judge Cancels Lockout Mediation Session
NEVADA: Jewish Inmate Files Class Action v. Dept. of Correction
NZ FINANCE COMPANIES: Investors Mull Class Action v. Trustees
OHIO: Class Action Disputes Medicaid Mental-Health Funding Cuts

ONVIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Settlement Appeals
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
ORCHID CELLMARK: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
ORCHID CELLMARK: Faces Merger-Related Suits in New Jersey & Del.
OVERHILL FARMS: Engaged in Discovery in "Agustiana" Suit

PARNON ENERGY: Derivatives Trading Class Actions Pile Up
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 840 Victory Cross Country Motorcycles
PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE: Defends Amended "Phillips" Suit in Illinois
RADIO ONE INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
RODMAN & RENSHAW: Faces Suits Over IPO in China-Based Businesses

SKYPEOPLE FRUIT JUICE: Rosen Law Firm Gives Update on Class Suit
SMART ONLINE: Makes Payments Under Class Suit Settlement
STERLING CHEMICALS: Unit Seeks Affirmation of Suit Dismissal
TPI COMPOSITES: Files Motion to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
TRAILER BRIDGE: Defends Suits vs. Ocean Carriers in Puerto Rico

UNIONBANCAL CORP: Trial Set for March 2012 in "Larsen" Suit
VERENIUM CORP: Appeals From IPO-Related Suit Settlement Pending
YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MT: Settles Deputies' Wage Class Action
YONGYE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Illinois Class Suit Pending



                             *********

BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Disability Benefits Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Coady, writing for Westlaw Journals, reports that a federal
judge in California has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Bank
of America and Aetna Insurance improperly refused to pay
disability benefits to a mortgage loan officer when he worked for
the bank.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Northern
District of California denied BofA's partial motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by Omid Behjou, finding that a settlement and
claims release in a prior class-action against the bank did not
preclude his claims for employee benefits.

The 2009 class action brought by BofA loan officers alleged that
the bank violated the California Labor Code by delaying payment of
their commissions and by not paying them for time they spent in
training sessions, conferences and other events.

According to the opinion, the case ended in July 2009 with a
$16.5 million settlement and a release of claims.

The sections of the release that pertained to class
representatives carved out some of Mr. Behjou's claims from the
settlement, including his long- and short-term disability claims
against BofA, Judge Armstrong noted.

Last September, Mr. Behjou sued the bank and Aetna Life Insurance
Co. as administrator of the plan.  He asked the court to award
benefits and unpaid salary, claiming that the bank shortchanged
him on his disability benefits by not including all his
commissions in his salary.

BofA moved to dismiss several of Mr. Behjou's claims, including
his allegations that the bank violated the California Insurance
Code, failed to pay him his salary when it was due and
intentionally subjected him to emotional distress.

The bank also said the settlement in the prior class action bars
his requests for punitive damages and attorney fees.

Judge Armstrong said that although Mr. Behjou's claims fall within
the scope of the release, they are still actionable under the
terms of the carve-out, which specifically allows Mr. Behjou to
pursue certain claims.

The "carved-out" claims are:

     * For short- and long-term disability benefits.

     * Those unrelated to his employment.

     * Those that involve his rights to 401(k) retirement and/or
       pension benefits.

     * Any future claims.

The judge said the carve-out is an exception to the release, which
allows Mr. Behjou "to bring claims for compensation to the extent
that they are related to his disability dispute -- notwithstanding
the release."

Behjou v. Bank of America Group Benefits Program et al., No. 10-
03982, 2011 WL 1827479 (N.D. Cal., Oakland Div. May 12, 2011).


BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Corporation continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit over allegations of fraud and
misrepresentation, according to the Company's May 13, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On September 18, 2008, in Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled
Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought suit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws.  On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner.  No
decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether a class will
be certified.  The Company denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


CENTRAL PACIFIC: Continues to Defend "Peterson" Suit in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------
Central Pacific Financial Corp. is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit filed in Hawaii in connection with its
overdraft practices and fees, according to the Company's May 13,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2011, the Company and its subsidiary Central Pacific Bank
were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned as
Gregory and Camila Peterson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Central Pacific Bank,
Central Pacific Financial Corp. and Doe Defendants 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 11-1-0457-03 VLC, in the First Circuit Court
of Hawaii in Honolulu.  The complaint asserts claims for
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations
of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, relating to the
bank's overdraft practices and fees.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss that may result from
this lawsuit.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Human Rights Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on June 3 disclosed that a
human rights lawsuit brought by Colombian families against banana
company Chiquita Brands International for allegedly funding and
arming known terrorist organizations in Colombia may continue in
U.S. federal court, a judge decided on June 3.

In 2007, after Chiquita pled guilty to federal criminal charges
for illegally funding Colombian paramilitary death squads, victims
filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that, in order to maintain
its profitable control of banana growing regions, Chiquita abetted
the paramilitaries in the commission of numerous human rights
abuses.  Among the plaintiffs who celebrate [Fri]day's victory are
the families of community organizers, trade union leaders, social
activists, and banana workers who were assassinated in the
paramilitaries' campaign of terrorizing civilians.  "We are very
pleased with this ruling, and we hope that the U.S. courts do
their job so that all the people who were persecuted in the
banana-growing region can see justice," said Jane Doe 8 (a
pseudonym), whose father was tortured and decapitated by
paramilitaries due to his activities as a union leader.

"The court agreed that Chiquita's alleged actions, in providing
financing and arms to brutal death squads, violated international
human rights law under the federal Alien Tort Statute, and may
constitute crimes against humanity," said Marco Simons, Legal
Director of EarthRights International (ERI), counsel for the
plaintiffs.  "The plaintiffs in this case lost family members,
including sons who were banana workers or their mothers who stood
up for their communities, as result of the conduct alleged.  They
look forward to having their claims heard by a jury," added
Agnieszka Fryszman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, also counsel
for the plaintiffs.

Documents obtained under FOIA and released by the National
Security Archive in April demonstrate that Chiquita knowingly paid
the paramilitaries to provide beneficial security services for its
operations, and then covered up the transactions.  In addition to
the payments, to which it has confessed, Chiquita is alleged to
have helped the paramilitaries ship drugs out and smuggle arms in
by giving the armed groups free access to its private port at
Turbo, on Colombia's Caribbean coast.

[Fri]day's ruling by Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida comes after three years
of litigation.  The case, Doe v. Chiquita Brands International,
No. 08-01916, was originally filed in New Jersey, and was
subsequently coordinated with other similar cases as In re
Chiquita Brands International Inc. Alien Tort Statute and
Shareholder Derivative Litigation in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Judge Marra's decision, which applies to all of the cases,
dismisses some of the claims brought by the plaintiffs under New
Jersey and Colombia law, but allows human rights claims to proceed
under the Alien Tort Statute.

Additional counsel for the plaintiffs include Paul Hoffman, Esq.,
Arturo Carrillo, Esq., Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq., and John
DeLeon, Esq.  The opinion and additional information is available
at http://www.earthrights.org and http://www.cohenmilstein.com

The FOIA documents are at:

     http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB340/index.htm.

EarthRights International (ERI) -- http://www.earthrights.org--
is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that combines the
power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights
and the environment.  Focusing on earth rights, its works at the
intersection of human rights and the environment.  It specialize
in fact-finding, legal actions against perpetrators of earth
rights abuses, training for grassroots and community leaders, and
advocacy campaigns that seek to end earth rights abuses and
promote and protect earth rights.  To learn more, please visit:

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cohenmilstein.com
-- has been a pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits on behalf
of victims of corporate abuses for over 40 years.  As one of the
premier firms in the country handling major complex class actions,
Cohen Milstein, with more than 60 attorneys and offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, has
litigated groundbreaking cases that have resulted in landmark
decisions on previously untried issues involving price fixing,
securities, consumer rights, and civil rights.


DE BEERS: Judge Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Hamilton, writing for The Vancouver Sun, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit filed by a British Columbia woman
alleging that diamond producer De Beers has been fixing prices in
this province, has been given the green light to go ahead by the
B.C. Supreme Court.

Justice Brenda Brown ruled last week that the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to hear the case, filed by Squamish resident Michelle
Fairhurst.  Lawyers representing De Beers had argued that since
the diamond producer does not carry on business in B.C., the court
has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The ruling opens the door to the case being certified as a class-
action suit, covering all buyers of diamonds within B.C., said
Reidar Mogerman, Esq., lawyer at the Vancouver law firm Camp
Fiorante Matthews.

"This is very much a preliminary step in this case," Mr. Mogerman
said in an interview.

He said Ms. Fairhurst is named as the plaintiff only because she
has purchased a diamond and agreed to act as the representative
plaintiff.

Lynette Gould, a spokeswoman for the De Beers Group, said in a
telephone interview from London that the ruling only addresses
jurisdiction for the case to be heard in B.C., not details of the
claim.  In the claim, Ms. Fairhurst describes a conspiracy to fix
diamond prices.

"We consider that claim to be wholly without merit," Ms. Gould
said. "If required we will defend our case quite rigorously and,
obviously, defend the reputation of De Beers."

She said De Beers is considering "all legal options."  It has 30
days to file an appeal.

De Beers Canada and six other De Beers entities are named in the
suit.  Historically, The De Beers Group controlled about 85% of
the world diamond supply.  In recent years, however, as a result
of De Beers selling assets and legal and regulatory actions in
other countries, its market share has dropped to 35%.  The B.C.
case was filed in 2007 but has taken four years for the issue of
jurisdiction to be settled.  A similar case in the United States
lasted a decade and is still not resolved, despite De Beers
agreeing to settle for C$275 million.

The B.C. case is the first class action price-fixing case against
De Beers to be filed in Canada.

"It's a bit of a David-versus-Goliath," Mr. Mogerman said.  "This
case is an attempt to use the class action legislation in British
Columbia to bring everybody together who has bought De Beers
diamonds and force De Beers to disgorge the profit that the class
says it unlawfully made."

In her ruling, Justice Brown outlined the class action claim,
stating that during the class period, from 1997 to 2007, De Beers
Canada Inc. and the other six De Beers entities wrongfully agreed
to suppress competition in the sale of gem-grade diamonds within
British Columbia and to prevent the sale of diamonds by reducing
the supply.

"The plaintiff pleads that these agreements to fix prices were
calculated to produce, and have produced, pernicious monopolies
and that the defendants have been able to charge and receive
artificially inflated and unreasonable prices," Justice Brown
stated in summing up Ms. Fairhurst's claim.

Counsel for De Beers countered that the De Beers entities named in
the suit do not carry out business in the province and that they
are not involved in the sale of gem-grade diamonds.

"Their involvement is, generally speaking, much higher in the
'diamond pipeline,' in that they sell rough diamonds to
sightholders," Justice Brown stated.  Sightholders are independent
customers who view the rough diamonds at sales in London.

These customers then re-sell the rough diamonds to other firms or
cut and polish them into individual gemstones.

The diamonds then are sold through a series of transactions to
jewelry manufacturers and from there to retailers.

None of the defendants is involved at any stage of production
below that of selling rough diamonds, Justice Brown stated in
outlining the De Beers position.

Despite that, Justice Brown ruled that a conspiracy can occur
where the damage was suffered, regardless of where the elements of
wrongful conduct took place.

"The defendants knew or ought to have known that the product would
be sold in British Columbia."


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit commenced by Tammy Brickey, et al., alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's June 1,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 29, 2011.

On May 18, 2006, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-
DGL, originally filed on February 9, 2006 and amended on May 12,
2006).  The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North
Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others,
assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including
overtime wages) under those statutes.

On February 22, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion in its entirety and ordered that the matter
proceed only as to the named plaintiffs.  On March 22, 2011, the
plaintiffs moved the court for reconsideration of its Order
denying their class certification motion.  On March 30, 2011, the
plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was denied.  To date, the
plaintiffs have not appealed.  If the case proceeds only as to the
named plaintiffs, the Company does not expect the outcome to be
material to its financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Expects Ruling on "Womack" Suit Deal This Summer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation is expecting its proposed settlement in
a class action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination to be filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama within the month and anticipates the Court's ruling
sometime during the summer of 2011, according to the Company's
June 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29, 2011.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH), in which the
plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less
than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the
Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (now captioned, Wanda Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH).  The complaint subsequently was
amended to include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have
been paid less than males because of their sex, and to add
allegations that the Company's compensation practices disparately
impact females.  Under the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to
proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under
Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current
and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act. The
Company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On November 30, 2007, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under
the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers
between November 30, 2004 and November 30, 2007.  The notice was
issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was
sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11, 2008.
Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The Company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010.  Briefing has
closed, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.  The Company's
motion to decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as
premature.  If the case proceeds, the Company expects to file a
similar motion in due course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court has
stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.   The
mediation occurred in March and April 2011, and the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf
of the entire putative class.  The proposed settlement, which
still must be submitted to and approved by the court, provides for
both monetary and equitable relief.  Under the proposed terms, the
Company will pay $15.5 million into a fund for the class members
that will be apportioned and paid out to individual members (less
any additional attorneys' fees or litigation costs approved by the
court), upon submission of a valid claim.  It will pay an
additional $3.25 million for plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  Of
the total $18.75 million anticipated payment, the Company expects
to receive reimbursement from its Employment Practices Liability
Insurance carrier of approximately $15.9 million, which represents
the balance remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy covering the
claims.  In addition, the Company has agreed to make certain
adjustments to its pay setting policies and procedures for new
store managers.  If approved, the Company expects to implement the
new pay policies and practices no later than April 2012.  The
Company expects the proposed settlement to be filed with the court
in June of 2011 and anticipates the court's ruling sometime during
the summer of 2011.  Because it deems settlement probable and
estimable, the Company has appropriately accrued for the net
settlement as well as for certain additional anticipated fees
related thereto during the 13-week period ended April 29, 2011,
and concurrently recorded a receivable of approximately $15.9
million from its EPLI carrier.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court
will approve the settlement.  If it does not, and the case
proceeds, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the
court ultimately will permit the action to proceed collectively
under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII.  Although
the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances
can be given that it would be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the proceedings, the
Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or
the value of the claims raised in this action if it proceeds.  For
these reasons, the Company says it is unable to estimate any
potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if
the Company is not successful in defending this action, its
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial statements as a whole.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com, inc., is awaiting a decision on a motion to dismiss
appeals from the approval of its settlement in the coordinated
cases relating to its public offerings, 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.

A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  It names drugstore.com as
a defendant, along with the underwriters and certain of the
Company's present and former officers and directors, in connection
with it July 27, 1999 initial public offering and March 15, 2000
secondary offering.  The suit purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through
which the Company conducted the Offerings were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that (i) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly 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 restricted number of
shares issued in connection with the Offerings and (ii) the
underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with customers
whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate drugstore.com shares
to customers in the Offerings in exchange for which customers
agreed to purchase additional drugstore.com shares in the after-
market at predetermined prices.  The complaint asserts violations
of various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount and other relief.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies or their present and former
officers and directors.

On October 9, 2002, the District Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice.  On December 5, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in six
of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or
"focus," cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do
not include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied a petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted
that plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more
narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in drugstore.com's case, reached a settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
drugstore.com.  The District Court approved the settlement on
October 5, 2009.  Appeals of the settlement approval are
proceeding before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeals.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable to estimate the potential damages that might
be awarded if the appeal is successful and it is found liable,
there arose a material limitation with respect to its insurance
coverage, or the amount awarded were to exceed tis insurance
coverage.  Because the Company's liability, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated, no amounts have been accrued for this
matter.  An adverse outcome in this matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of
operations.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Walgreen-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com, inc., is facing two consolidated class action
lawsuits in Delaware and Washington in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Walgreen Co., 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.

In March and April of 2011, seven putative class action lawsuits
arising from the proposed acquisition of drugstore.com by Walgreen
Co. (Walgreens) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
King County, against drugstore.com, its directors, Walgreens, and
Dover Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub).  The complaints purport to
have been filed on behalf of all holders of drugstore.com common
stock, and generally allege that the defendants either breached
their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, fair dealing,
and full disclosure, or aided and abetted such breaches.
drugstore.com, directors Dawn Lepore, Geoffrey R. Entress, Richard
W. Bennet III, Jeffrey M. Killeen, William D. Savoy, and Gregory
S. Stanger, and Walgreens, are named defendants in all of the
complaints.  Merger Sub is also named as a defendant in some of
the complaints.

On April 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to consolidate, stay,
and proceed in one forum in the Washington actions.  On April 15,
2011, defendants also filed a motion to proceed in one forum with
the Court of Chancery in Delaware.  On May 2, 2011, the Washington
court entered an order consolidating the Washington actions, and
referring the determination on the one forum issue to the judge
assigned to the consolidated Washington actions.

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

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

The relief generally sought by plaintiffs in all actions is, among
other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the merger and that the merger be declared unlawful
and unenforceable, a rescission of the merger, to the extent it
has already been consummated, and awarding plaintiffs costs,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  The Delaware
Consolidated Amended Complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory and "rescissory" damages.

On May 3, 2011, the Delaware court entered an order consolidating
the Delaware actions, appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for plaintiffs, and designating the Consolidated Amended Complaint
as the operative complaint in the consolidated actions.  Also on
May 3, 2011, lead plaintiffs in the Delaware consolidated actions
moved to expedite discovery on the basis that such discovery is
needed to seek a preliminary injunction.  On May 11, 2011, the
Delaware Court conducted a status conference with the parties, at
which the Court tentatively set a hearing on plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction for May 31, 2011.
The parties are conferring on an appropriate schedule concerning
discovery and briefing and intend to submit a stipulated proposed
order to Delaware Court.

On May 4, 2011, plaintiff Hurlin moved to expedite discovery in
the consolidated Washington actions on the basis that such
discovery is needed to seek a preliminary injunction.  On May 12,
2011, the Washington Court held a hearing on defendants's motion
to proceed in one forum and plaintiff Hurlin's motion to expedite
discovery.  At the hearing, the parties mutually agreed to allow
the Washington plaintiffs to be included in discovery related to
the Delaware consolidated actions, including the production of
documents and attendance at proposed depositions.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable to estimate the potential damages that might
be awarded if the lawsuit is successful and it is found liable,
there arose a material limitation with respect to its insurance
coverage, or the amount awarded were to exceed its insurance
coverage.  Because the Company's liability, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated, no amounts have been accrued for this
matter.  An adverse outcome in this matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of
operations.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Okay of Deal Resolving Wage-Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of two lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims,
according to the Company's June 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

In October 2010, Prince Telecom, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon.  The plaintiffs, three
former employees of Prince, alleged various wage and hour claims,
including that employees were not paid for all hours worked and
were subject to improper wage deductions.  Plaintiffs sought to
certify as a class current and former employees of the subsidiary
who worked in the State of Oregon.  In October 2010, the
plaintiffs' attorneys and Prince entered into a memorandum of
understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed to the terms of
a proposed settlement with respect to the lawsuit.  As a result,
the Company recorded approximately $0.5 million in other accrued
liabilities with respect to the proposed settlement during the
first quarter of fiscal 2011.  On May 18, 2011, the Court entered
an Order approving the settlement and dismissed the action with
prejudice subject to final administration of the terms of the
settlement.  The Order may be appealed for 30 days from the date
on which it was entered.

In May 2011, a proposed settlement was reached with respect to the
Company's other two outstanding wage and hour class action
lawsuits.  In connection with an agreement to settle the two
lawsuits entered into by the Company, Prince, Cavo Broadband
Communications, LLC, Broadband Express, LLC, and the plaintiffs'
attorneys, the Company recorded $0.6 million in other accrued
liabilities during the third quarter of fiscal 2011.  The first of
the two lawsuits, which commenced in June 2010, was brought by a
former employee of Prince against Prince, the Company and certain
unnamed U.S. affiliates of Prince and the Company (the
"Affiliates") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The lawsuit alleged that Prince, the
Company and the Affiliates violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to comply with applicable overtime pay requirements.
The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated
current and former employees of Prince, the Company and/or the
Affiliates.  The second of the lawsuits, which commenced in
September 2010, was brought by two former employees of BBX against
BBX in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.  The lawsuit alleged that BBX violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to comply with applicable overtime pay
requirements.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other
relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly
situated current and former employees of BBX.  The proposed
settlement and the consolidation of the two lawsuits are subject
to the approval of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Wage & Hour Suit in Washington Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Dycom Industries, Inc., and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Prince Telecom LLC, were named as defendants in a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The plaintiffs, all former employees of the
subsidiary, alleged various wage and hour claims, including those
employees were not paid for all hours worked and were subject to
improper wage deductions.  Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class
current and former employees of the subsidiary who worked in the
State of Washington.  The Company estimated the liability of the
proposed settlement at $2.0 million and recorded a pre-tax charge
for this amount during the quarter ended October 24, 2009.  In
November 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Company and the
subsidiary entered into a memorandum of understanding pursuant to
which the parties agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement
with respect to the lawsuit.  In January 2010, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  Notice of the
terms of the proposed settlement and claim forms were mailed to
members of the plaintiffs' class in February 2010.  The Court held
a hearing regarding the plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in April 2010, at which time it
entered an Order approving the settlement and dismissed the action
with prejudice subject to final administration of the terms of the
settlement.  Excluding legal expenses of the Company,
approximately $1.6 million was incurred pursuant to the settlement
and was paid in June 2010.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 1, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.


ENCORE CAPITAL: State AGs Oppose Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of 38
state attorneys general are opposing a proposed class action
settlement with Encore Capital Group Inc.'s Midland unit over
robo-signed affidavits.

The proposed settlement is "paltry" and unfair to consumers, the
group said in a June 1 court filing.

The settlement, which would provide up to $5.7 million for 1.4
million class members, was announced in February.  San Diego-based
Encore, which often buys debt from credit card companies, agreed
to settle claims that the company relied on false affidavits to
bring debt collection lawsuits.

"Under any interpretation, the ten-dollar-per-class-member
settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate to address the
harm incurred," the attorneys general, led by New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman, said in the brief, filed in federal
court in Ohio.

The attorneys general, from states including California, Ohio and
Massachusetts, also said the agreement unfairly forces class
members to release any claims against the company, allowing
Midland to pursue claims against plaintiffs.

"The settlement strips class members of their right to defend
against existing lawsuits and to seek to vacate judgments obtained
through defendants' use of false and misleading affidavits," the
attorneys general wrote.

The attorneys general also objected to $1.5 million of fees for
plaintiffs counsel, and the "generous" payment of $8,000 for the
named plaintiffs in the case.

U.S. District Judge David Katz in Toledo, Ohio, preliminarily
approved the settlement in March and set June 1 as the deadline
for any objections.  A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 11.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Dennis Murray, Sr., Esq., at Murray & Murray
didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

A spokesman for Encore didn't immediately have a comment.

All 50 states are investigating robo-signing and other improper
practices by banks in the mortgage industry.

In May, in a separate case, Minnesota sued Midland for filing
robo-signed affidavits.

The case is Vassalle et al v. Midland Funding LLC, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, No. 11-00096.


FARMERS INSURANCE: SC Upholds $8-Mil. Class Action Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Oregon Supreme Court has upheld an $8-million judgment in a class-
action lawsuit against a group of insurance companies.

The Court, in its May 19 ruling, affirmed the decision of an
appeals court in part and reversed it in part.  The Court also
affirmed the judgment of the Multnomah County Circuit Court.

Mark Strawn, the lead plaintiff, filed a class action against
defendants Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid-Century
Insurance Company and Truck Insurance Exchange, collectively
referred to as Farmers in court documents.

Mr. Strawn's complaint alleged that Farmers had breached its
contractual obligations and committed fraud by instituting a
claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced payments for
reasonable medical benefits owed under its automobile insurance
policies.

A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.  Based on that
verdict and a post-verdict class claims administration process,
the trial court entered a judgment against Farmers for about
$900,000 in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive
damages.  Farmers appealed.

On appeal, the appeals court concluded that the punitive damages
award exceeded federal constitutional limits, but otherwise
affirmed the judgment.  Both parties petitioned for review.

In its petition, Farmers presented three issues.  The first two
raise challenges to the liability verdict entered against Farmers.
The third issue challenges the punitive damages award, arguing
that the appeals court should have reduced the punitive damages
award further.

The plaintiffs contend that the appeals court should not have
reached the constitutionality of the punitive damages award for
procedural reasons, and that the full amount of punitive damages
awarded by the jury was within constitutional limits.

The Court, in its majority opinion, rejected Farmers' arguments
that seek to set aside the jury's liability determinations on
plaintiffs' claims.

On the punitive damages issues, it also concluded that the appeals
court should not have reached Farmers' constitutional challenge to
the amount of the punitive damages award.

Justice Virginia L. Linder wrote the Court's opinion.

"The trial court articulated two alternative reasons for denying
Farmers's motions (waiver and other procedural defects, as well as
a conclusion on the merits that the award did not exceed
constitutional limits).  The trial court further expressly
concluded that both bases on which it ruled were independently
sufficient to support the trial court's ruling," the Court wrote.

"Logically, that was true.  On appeal, Farmers failed to preserve
any challenge to the waiver and other procedural grounds on which
the trial court's order was alternatively based.  Any error by the
trial court concerning the constitutionality of the punitive
damages award therefore was necessarily harmless."

The Court emphasized that it would not decide whether the trial
court's alternative grounds for its ruling were sound.

"The correctness of the trial court's waiver and other procedural
analyses are not before us, just as those issues were not before
the Court of Appeals," it wrote.  "Indeed, it is precisely because
the trial court's alternative grounds for ruling were not
challenged by Farmers that the issue of the excessiveness of the
punitive damages award was not before the Court of Appeals for its
determination.

"Likewise, whether that award was constitutionally excessive is
not before us.  For that reason, the punitive damages award must
be affirmed," the Court concluded.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action (cv-11-3772), pending in the Southern
District of New York, is on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased Fushi securities during the period between August 14,
2007, and March 29, 2011, inclusive.  The Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

To discuss this action, e-mail Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or call 888-476-6529, toll free.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address
and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) that the Company was improperly applying hedge accounting to a
cross currency interest swap derivative entered into in April
2007; (2) that the Company failed to recognize changes in the fair
value of the April 2007 SWAP in its earnings during the Class
Period, thus inflating its reported net income by material
amounts; (3) that the Company incorrectly recorded $3.3 million
and $1.8 million of gain on bargain purchases resulting from two
acquisitions in February and May 2010; (4) as a result of
incorrectly recording such gains, the Company overstated its net
income for the quarters ended March 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010;
(5) that the Company had material deficiencies in its internal
controls over its financial reporting; (6) that Fushi's financial
statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles and were materially false and
misleading; and (7) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a
basis for their positive statements about the Company, its
prospects and growth.

On March 11, 2011, after the market closed, Fushi disclosed that
it is reevaluating the application of GAAP to certain accounting
treatments applied to its 2007, 2008, and 2009 financial results
as well as its previously filed quarterly financial statements for
the first three quarters of 2010.  Further, the Company disclosed
that the "accounting treatments are related to the ability to
realize deferred income tax assets, qualification of cash flow
hedge for cross-currency interest swap, and bargain purchase gains
recognized in 2010 acquisitions."

As a result of the disclosures, Fushi shares declined by $1.68 per
share or 18% for three consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$7.74 per share on March 16, 2011.  On March 29, 2011, after the
market closed, in a Form 8-K, Fushi disclosed that its Audit
Committee concluded that the Company's previously issued financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
and its unaudited interim financial statements for the quarters
ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010 should
no longer be relied upon and should be restated, due to two errors
in the application GAAP regarding (1) the accounting for cross-
currency interest swap derivative and (2) the acquisitions of
Dalian Jinchuan Electric Cable Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Hongtai
Industrial Co., Ltd.  As a result of these further disclosures,
Fushi common stock declined by $0.19 per share or 2.3%, to close
at $8.12 per share on March 30, 2011.

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

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle
         Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
         888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com


GS FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Merger With Home Bancorp
--------------------------------------------------------
GS Financial Corp. is defending itself against a putative class
action lawsuit over its proposed merger with Home Bancorp, Inc.,
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 March 30, 2011, the Company and Home Bancorp, Inc., entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which a to-be-
formed wholly owned interim merger subsidiary of Home Bancorp will
be merged with and into the Company and, immediately thereafter,
the Company will merge with and into Home Bancorp.  Promptly
following consummation of the Merger, it is expected that the Bank
will merge with and into Home Bank.  The Merger is expected to be
completed during the third quarter of 2011.

On April 6, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
lawsuit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Jefferson of the State of Louisiana captioned Kahn v. Scott, et
al., No. 1700250, naming Home Bancorp, the Company and members of
the Company's board of directors as defendants.  This lawsuit is
brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Home
Bancorp aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by, among other things: agreeing to a merger for consideration
that undervalues the Company; and fails to maximize shareholder
value; excluding other potential bidders; agreeing to contractual
provisions that precluded a fair sales process; engaging in self-
dealing; and failing to protect against conflicts of interest.
Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.

The Company believes the claims asserted are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


KOSS CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corporation is awaiting court approval of its motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint brought against the
Company in Wisconsin, according to the Company's May 13, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  An amended complaint
was filed on September 10, 2010 adding Grant Thornton LLP as a
defendant.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims,
which is currently pending before the Court.


LEHMAN BROTHERS AUSTRALIA: Did Not Break Any Law, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a Federal Court on June 3 held that just because some e-mail
exchanges between executives in the "sausage factory" of Lehman
Brothers Australia were "not a good look" did not mean that Lehman
had broken any law in its dealings with customers.

John Sheahan, SC, representing the collapsed investment bank's
liquidator in a class action brought by aggrieved clients, said
when lawyers examined "how sausages were made" years after the
event, the sight of "normal commercial activity" could appear
"unattractive".

The class action of 72 councils, charities and churches seeks $250
million in compensation for losses incurred on synthetic
collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, marketed by Lehman and
its forerunner, Grange Securities.

Justice Steven Rares asked Mr. Sheahan about an internal Grange
letter about the firm's short-term repurchase transactions with
clients.  It referred to the "haircut", or discount, that an
"informed investor" would insist on and said it would be "so large
that it . . . makes funding stock with the informed investors
prohibitive for us."

Some repurchase transactions with councils had no "haircut".

Justice Rares said the case being put against Lehman was that a
Grange executive, Moray Vincent, was saying: "We know these people
don't get it, so we will take advantage of them."

Mr. Sheahan said his client accepted that the repurchase letter
indicated that on some occasions the councils "were not getting as
full a security as if they were better informed market players".

The judge also raised a July 2007 internal e-mail in which a
Grange executive, Michael Clout, referred to "recent bad press on
CDOs" while discussing "switching" clients into an issue of CDOs
called Flinders notes.

"Your honor, we are looking inside the sausage factory where
people are talking frankly to each other," Mr. Sheahan said.  "In
order to work out whether there was anything truly inappropriate
happening, you would need to know the price at which this was sold
and whether that was an unfair price."

The class action's lawyers had made no attempt to do that, he
said.  "It doesn't look good but it doesn't amount to a cause of
action."

He said a firm that was a market maker in securities would try to
have a balanced portfolio with "really safe, low-yielding stuff"
and riskier products.

A switch could be a good fit for a customer's portfolio, he said.

He said that with the benefit of hindsight, the clients who bought
Flinders did well.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Third Customer Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX Chicago News reports that Michaels Stores, Inc., was named in
a third federal, class-action lawsuit on June 2 after a security
breach at craft stores in 20 states gave thieves access to
thousands of customers' bank information.

The plaintiff in the most recent suit, Kimberly M. Spirut, says
her bank account information was compromised when she shopped at a
Mt. Prospect Michaels store on March 30.

The tampering took place between Feb. 8 and May 6, the suit
states, and affected thousands of Michaels customers in at least
20 states, including 11 in the Chicago area.

The suit claims that Texas-based Michaels failed to take
reasonable security measures to protect its customers and also
that the company harmed customers by failing to notify them of the
breach until months after it began.

In a May 5 letter to customers, the company urged customers to
"protect themselves" by checking with their banks and credit card
customers, the suit states.

"At no time has Michaels offered any credit monitoring assistance,
not has Michaels taken any steps to protect or otherwise rectify
the damages it has caused Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class," the suit states.

The suit charges Michaels with negligence and claims the company
violated the Federal Stored Communications Act and Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiffs May Allen and Brandi F. Ramundo have filed similar
class-action lawsuits in recent weeks.


MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Brake Invoices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Midas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit over incorrect invoices issued to brake customers,
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.

The Company is currently involved in a class action lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
in June 2006 that alleges that certain franchised California Midas
shops intentionally issued invoices to certain brake customers
that incorrectly indicated that the customers had received Midas-
branded brake products when, in fact, they had received inferior
non-Midas brake products.  MDS denies the plaintiffs' allegations
and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  MDS has thus far been
successful in challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs'
claims.  The plaintiffs' third amended complaint was dismissed in
February 2009.  The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in
March of 2009.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations are without
merit.  However, the Company says there can be no assurance that
it will prevail in such proceedings.  An adverse ruling could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


MIDAS INC: Continues to Defend Franchisee Class Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Midas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by two franchisees in Canada, 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.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice by two Canadian Midas
franchisees.  The plaintiffs alleged various violations of the
Midas Franchise and Trademark Agreement and applicable law and
sought class certification and monetary damages of approximately
$168 million.  The class certification hearing took place in
February 2009 and the court released its certification ruling on
March 26, 2009.  Of the many claims asserted by the plaintiff, the
only claim for which class certification was granted was the issue
of whether Midas Canada breached its common law and statutory
duties of good faith and fair dealing when it implemented its new
supply chain program in 2003.  All other causes of action were
rejected by the court.

The Company, in its March 17, 2011, Annual Report for the year
ended January 1, 2011, said it was in the process of compiling
historical documents as a result of the plaintiffs' discovery
request.  No further updates were reported in the Company's latest
SEC filing.  The Company continues to believe this lawsuit is
without merit.  However, the Company says there can be no
assurance that it will prevail in such proceedings.  An adverse
ruling could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition and results of operations.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, is awaiting a decision from the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action, 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 the first half of 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in
11 (subsequently reduced to nine) purported class action lawsuits
and six (subsequently reduced to two) derivative suits.  In each
of these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim to represent
a class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were
injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between
May 3, 2004, and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the
class they purport to represent.  The class action lawsuits have
been consolidated into a single legal proceeding pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  By
court order, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the class actions on December 5, 2008, and the cases will proceed
as one consolidated case.  Similarly, a single consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the derivative cases on
December 12, 2008 and these cases will likewise proceed as a
single case.  In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claim, among
other things, that the Company was injured because its directors
and certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the
accuracy of its financial disclosures.  A derivative suit is a
lawsuit brought by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the
shareholder's own behalf, but on behalf of the corporation and
against the parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation.
Any proceeds of a successful derivative action are awarded to the
corporation, except to the extent they are used to pay fees to the
plaintiffs' counsel and other costs.  The derivative cases and the
class action cases have all been consolidated before the same
court.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action
and the motion is before the court for decision.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these
specific actions are still in a preliminary stage, the Company
says it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these matters at
this time.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Judge Cancels Lockout Mediation Session
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a possible sign of
progress, a federal magistrate on June 2 canceled the June 7-8
mediation session in the Tom Brady v. NFL class action, which
threatens this year's pro football season.

In a terse order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan wrote:
"Whereas, the Court has been engaged in confidential settlement
discussions involving the above captioned matter, it deems it
appropriate to cancel the mediation session previously scheduled
in Minneapolis for June 7 and June 8."

Players want the league and its 32 teams to open their books to
verify that they are getting a square deal on revenue sharing,
among other things. They dissolved their union and filed an
antitrust class action against the league and its owners.

The league and owners call the dissolution of the players' union a
sham, and say the dispute should be handled by the National Labor
Relations Board, a more time-consuming process that would
presumably lock in place the status quo ante.

Owners locked out the players and appear ready to scrub the
season.

Judge Boylan's 2-paragraph order does not indicate whether
progress is being made in the mediation, but the sports press,
citing "secret talks" this week in Chicago, reported June 3 that
progress appears to be being made.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in
St. Louis, was set to hear arguments on a preliminary injunction
in the lockout on June 3.

U.S. District Judge David Doty, in Minneapolis, is mulling damages
for players in a multibillion-dollar case involving TV rights.

Retired players have filed a complaint of their own.

A copy of the Order in Brady, et al. v. National Football League
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/03/NFLCancel.pdf


NEVADA: Jewish Inmate Files Class Action v. Dept. of Correction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that the Nevada
Department of Correction is violating prisoners' freedoms by
adopting a new policy to stop providing kosher meals, an Orthodox
Jewish inmate claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Howard Ackerman says he is a prisoner at the
Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City and is
"commanded to obey the laws of kashrut and to keep kosher in his
diet."  The laws of kashrut are "commanded by God and are
explicitly set out in the text of the Torah . . . in both
Leviticus and Deuteronomy," according to Mr. Ackerman's nine-page
complaint.

Nevada has provided all approved Jewish inmates with kosher meals
since one inmate sued in 2002.  The kosher meals came pre-packaged
and were delivered to desiring prisoners as they moved through the
meal line, the lawsuit states.

Though Mr. Ackerman was approved for a kosher diet as an observant
Orthodox Jew, he says the corrections department abruptly decided
to discontinue the kosher fare.  The change to "common fare" for
all prisoners "imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of his
religion in that it renders his religious exercise effectively
impracticable," according to the complaint.

Mr. Ackerman says he is "being forced to go without food or to
modify his behavior, eat non-kosher foods, and violate his
beliefs."

Mr. Ackerman says the "common fare" diet is not kosher, in that it
is prepared "on the same cooking surfaces and in the same pots and
pants as are used for preparing meat or in which meat and milk
have been mixed."

He complains of certain "common fare" meals containing non-kosher
meats, and that "common fare" silverware and serving trays also
aren't kosher because they were "used in earlier meals including
non-kosher foods or combination of food (e.g. meat and milk) that
violate the rules of kashrut."

"There are limited kosher foods available through commissary and
Mr. Ackerman does not have the financial ability to feed himself
through the foods," the lawsuit states.  "Moreover, these foods
are not necessarily healthy if eaten to the exclusion of all
others."

Mr. Ackerman sued the Nevada Department of Correction, acting
director James Cox, Gov. Brian Sandoval, Secretary of State Ross
Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.  Each of the
individual defendants make up the Board of State Prison
Commissioners responsible for the oversight of the Department of
Correction.

Mr. Ackerman seeks an order restoring kosher diets and a
declaration that their termination violates his and other inmates'
religious freedoms.

A copy of the Complaint in Ackerman v. State of Department of
Corrections, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00883 (D. Nev.), is available
at http://is.gd/YDGfww

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob L. Hafter, Esq.
          Michael Naethe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACOB HAFTER & ASSOCIATES
          7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Ste 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128
          Telephone: (702) 405-6700
          E-mail: jhafter@hafterlaw.com


NZ FINANCE COMPANIES: Investors Mull Class Action v. Trustees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Harris, writing for BusinessDay.co.nz, reports that
hundreds of court cases against financial advisers are in the
system, and lawyers say more may follow a test case in which an
investor successfully sued his financial planner.

Andrew Hooker, whose firm Turner Hopkins is shoring up a class
action suit against trustees of collapsed finance companies, said
hundreds of investors were trying recoup their losses through
individual cases.

However, they often did not succeed because the investors ran out
of money or their advisers could not pay damages.

"A lot of [cases] end up falling into a big fat hole because
there's no money.  So you end up suing a company that just goes
into liquidation."

However, Mr. Hooker said he "absolutely" expected more investors
would join multi-party cases against finance companies, directors
and trustees.

The case being hailed as a benchmark for investors is a High Court
ruling called Armitage versus Church.

It found largely in favour of Neil Armitage, a retired Wellington
investor, against his Turangi-based adviser Carey Church.

Grant Cameron, Esq., a Christchurch lawyer known for class action
cases, agreed with Mr. Hooker that the Armitage case would bring
other cases out of the woodwork.

"I can't say that in the overall, I'm surprised to hear a
plaintiff somewhere has succeeded because in some cases that we've
seen, we think the standards weren't met."

He currently had 38 cases involving investors and advisers "and I
think that's largely the tip of the iceberg".

Mrs. Church put a quarter of Mr. Armitage's money in several
finance companies including Bridgecorp in 2005 and the large
majority into funds run by ING.

Justice Robert Dobson said Mrs. Church's advice was not negligent
but that she put too much into finance firms and that she should
have recommended a wider range of lower-interest products such as
bonds.

Mrs. Church has indicated she will appeal on the grounds that she
was entitled to believe ING's documentation about one of its
funds, and that her advice was not out of kilter with the industry
at that time.

Mrs. Church's lawyer, Brian Henry, Esq., said many investors had
been awaiting the outcome of his client's case.

"There's a lot of them out there.  They've just been waiting for
one to finally break through the courts and this was the first
one."

The Institute of Financial Advisers called the ruling "fair" but
others in the industry said some advisers might feel the risks
outweighed their fees.

Kirk Hope, executive director of the Financial Services
Federation, which represents finance companies and other
providers, said the possibility of legal action and uncertainty
about commissions could push some advisers out of the industry.

"This will be one of the features of the new environment."

Lyn McMorran, a former institute president, said: "Your main
protection as an adviser is to follow the right process and do the
right thing and put your clients' interests ahead of your own."


OHIO: Class Action Disputes Medicaid Mental-Health Funding Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action challenges Gov. John Kasich's elimination of Medicaid
mental-health funding for thousands of disabled nursing home
residents.  The class claims the $40 million in cuts are
unconstitutional, and target the most vulnerable people most in
need of help.

"Defendants have stated that they plan to completely eliminate
mental health services funded by CMH [Community Mental Health]
Medicaid for long-term residents of long-term care facilities,
while continuing to provide such services for Medicaid recipients
who are short-term residents of longterm care facilities or do not
reside in such facilities.  This action will unlawfully
discriminate against the most vulnerable and needy population of
Ohioans (who are by definition disabled) in violation of the
Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act and the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution," according to the complaint.

About 85,000 Ohioans live in long-term care facilities, the
complaint states.  Most are elderly, and "all meet the criteria of
being disabled by virtue of their need for the level of care
required for a nursing home stay.  A substantial number of them
have been or are diagnosed with mental illness and require mental
health treatment."

The complaint continues: "The State of Ohio, through ODMH
[defendant Office of the Department of Mental Health] and/or ODJFS
[defendant Office of the Department of Job and Family Services],
is preparing to enact a rule (initially on an emergency basis)
that will eliminate CMH Medicaid coverage of mental health
services for long-term residents of long-term care facilities,
including individual plaintiffs and class members.

"Currently, Ohioans living in long-term care facilities can be
transported to a local mental health agency or seen on-site by a
mental health therapist, and those services are funded by CMH
Medicaid and are billable through the community mental health
system, just as they are for any other Medicaid recipient.

"Under the new rule, 'long-term' residents of long-term care
facilities will no longer be eligible for CMH Medicaid funding for
any service delivered by a community mental health agency
provider.  As a consequence, many of them will no longer receive
mental health services at all."

Class representatives include Joanne McKenzie, 60, who suffers
from "traumatic brain injury, syncope, hypokalemia,
encephalopathy, anemia, fibromyalgia, seizure disorder,
hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, hypertension and hyperparathyroidism," and is bipolar.

Plaintiff Dean Buehler, 64, suffers from "cancer, severe vision
impairment, glaucoma, grand mal seizures, gastroesophageal reflux
disease, osteomy and conjunctiva bleeding.  He also has been
diagnosed with schizophrenia."

The plaintiffs say the state's plan violates the Constitution
because it deprives of medical services only those "categorically
needy" people who live in long-term care residences.

It violates the ADA by imposing "eligibility criteria that screen
out or tend to screen out individual plaintiffs and class members
. . . from fully and equally enjoying the CMH Medicaid services,"
the complaint states.

The class seeks an injunction preventing implementation of any law
that "eliminates or disproportionately reduces payments for CMH
Medicaid services provided to long-term residents of long-term
care facilities who are Medicaid recipients."

A copy of the Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order
Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory
Relief, Case No. 2:11-cv-473 (S.D. Ohio), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/03/OMedicaid.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caroline H. Gentry, Esq.
          Paul G. Hallinan, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          One South Main Street, Suite 1600
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 449-6748
          E-mail cgentry@porterwright.com
                 phallinan@porterwright.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Miller, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          41 South High Street, Suite 3000
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 227-2101
          E-mail: dbmiller@porterwright.com


ONVIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Settlement Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia, Inc., is awaiting a decision on a motion to dismiss the
appeals from the approval of its settlement in the consolidated
lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, 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 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter
of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, or IPO, Credit Suisse First
Boston, or CSFB.  The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6,
2000.  In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed.  The complaint
charged defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that failed to
disclose and contained false and misleading statements regarding
certain commissions purported to have been received by the
underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in
connection with their allocation of shares in the offering.  The
complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees.  This action is being coordinated with
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies.  At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six
"focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.  The Court indicated
that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide
strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.

Objectors to the settlement are pursuing appeals of the settlement
approval to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeals.

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


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order granting the settlement in the numerous
lawsuits relating to initial public offerings by certain
companies, including Oplink Communications, Inc., remain pending,
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.

In November 2001, Oplink and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that Oplink, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of Oplink's initial public offering violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that
Oplink's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that went public in the late 1990s and early
2000s and their IPO underwriters.  During the summer of 2008, the
parties engaged in a formal mediation process to discuss a global
resolution of the IPO Lawsuits.  Ultimately, the parties reached
an agreement to settle all 309 cases against all defendants, and
entered into a settlement agreement in April 2009.  The settlement
provides for a $586 million recovery in total, divided among the
309 cases.  Oplink's share of the settlement is roughly $327,458,
which is the amount Oplink will be required to pay if the
settlement is finally approved.

In October 2009, the Court certified the settlement class in each
case and granted final approval to the settlement.  A number of
appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
challenging the fairness of the settlement.  A number of
shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to
appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's
ruling.  These appeals and petitions are pending.


ORCHID CELLMARK: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of class action lawsuits related to
Orchid Cellmark Inc.'s initial public offering remain pending,
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 21, 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming the
Company as a defendant, along with certain of its former officers
and underwriters.  An amended complaint was filed on April 19,
2002.  The complaint, as amended, purportedly was filed on behalf
of persons purchasing the Company's stock between May 4, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The amended
complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's May 5,
2000 initial public offering, or IPO, the defendants failed to
disclose additional and excessive commissions purportedly
solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in exchange
for allocating shares of the Company's stock to preferred
customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter defendants
and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO shares to
agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose
these alleged arrangements made the Company's registration
statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in May 2000 and the
prospectus, a part of the registration statement, materially false
and misleading.  On or about July 15, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss all of the claims against the Company and its
former officers.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without
prejudice only the Company's former officers, Dale R. Pfost and
Donald R. Marvin, from the litigation in exchange for the Company
entering into a tolling agreement with plaintiffs' executive
committee.

On February 19, 2003, the Company received notice of the Court's
decision to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the Company.
Plaintiffs and the defendant issuers involved in related IPO
securities litigation, including the Company, have agreed in
principal on a settlement that, upon a one-time surety payment by
the defendant issuers' insurers, would release the defendant
issuers and the individual officers and directors from claims and
any future payments or out-of-pocket costs.  On March 10, 2005,
the Court issued a memorandum and order (i) preliminarily
approving the settlement, contingent on the parties' agreement on
modifications of the proposed bar order in the settlement
documents, (ii) certifying the parties' proposed settlement
classes, (iii) certifying the proposed class representatives for
the purposes of the settlement only and (iv) setting a further
hearing for the purposes of (a) making a final determination as to
the form, substance and program of notice of proposed settlement
and (b) scheduling a public fairness hearing in order to determine
whether the settlement can be finally approved by the Court.  On
April 24, 2006, the Court held a fairness hearing and took the
motion for final approval under advisement.  On October 5, 2009,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for an order of final
approval of the settlement, plan of allocation and certification
of the class.  Such settlement does not require any payment by the
Company to the plaintiffs.  The defendant issuers' share of the
settlement amount is funded by the insurers.  Notices of appeal
have been filed by six groups of appellants.  None of the notices
state the basis for appeal.

In related proceedings against the underwriters, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on December 5, 2006,
that the certification by the District Court for the Southern
District of New York of class actions against the underwriters in
six "focus" cases was vacated and remanded for further
proceedings.  In so doing, the Second Circuit ruled that "the
cases pending on this appeal may not be certified as class
actions."  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and no further appeals have
been taken.

As a result of the Second Circuit's ruling, the plaintiffs and the
issuers stipulated on June 22, 2007, that the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers and Individuals,
which was originally submitted to the Court on June 10, 2004, was
terminated, which resolved the motion for final approval of the
class action settlement with the issuers and individual
defendants.  The Court entered the parties' stipulation as an
Order on June 25, 2007.  As a result of these developments, the
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints against the underwriters
and "focus case" issuers and individuals and are attempting to
certify a class action.

In response to the amended complaints, the underwriters and
"focus case" issuers moved to dismiss the amended complaints.  On
March 26, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part.  As a result, the Court will proceed with the
plaintiffs' amended complaints against the underwriters and "focus
case" issuers to determine whether class actions can be certified.

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


ORCHID CELLMARK: Faces Merger-Related Suits in New Jersey & Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orchid Cellmark Inc. is facing a number of class action lawsuits
in New Jersey and Delaware over its proposed merger with
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and OCM 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 April 5, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and OCM
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp, pursuant
to which LabCorp will acquire the Company in a two-step
transaction.

On April 11, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division, Mercer County (Docket No. C 000032 11) against the
Company, LabCorp, Purchaser and individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors.  This action, captioned Bruce
Ballard v. Orchid Cellmark, et al., alleges that (i) individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, including the
duties of loyalty, care, candor, and good faith, and failed to
maximize value for the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the
Merger Agreement, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and Purchaser
aided and abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the
acquisition of the Company by Purchaser and LabCorp or, in the
alternative, to rescind the Merger Agreement to the extent already
implemented, (ii) an order requiring the Company's Board of
Directors and LabCorp to disclose all material information related
to the Merger Agreement, and (iii) monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.  The Company believes the allegations
described in the complaint are entirely without merit, and the
defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 13, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6373-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Herbert Silverberg v. Thomas
Bologna, et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
care and loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing
to properly value the Company, (b) failing to maximize the
Company's value, (c) agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement and
other terms that favor LabCorp, and (d) putting LabCorp's
interests above those of the Company's stockholders; and (ii)
LabCorp and Purchaser aided and abetted the individual defendants
in the breach of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i)
to enjoin the acquisition of the Company by Purchaser and LabCorp
and the implementation of deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement and deployment of the Company's poison pill, and (ii)
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  The Company believes
the allegations described in the complaint are entirely without
merit, and the defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 18, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6389-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Gene Nannetti v. Thomas Balogna
[sic], et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
good faith, independence, and loyalty owed to the Company's
stockholders by (a) failing to maximize the Company's value, (b)
failing to properly value the Company, and (c) ignoring or not
protecting against conflicts of interest resulting from their
interrelationships or connections with the proposed sale of the
Company, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and Purchaser aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the
Company by Purchaser and LabCorp or, in the alternative, to
rescind the sale of the Company and award plaintiff rescissory
damages, and (ii) an accounting of all profits and any special
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants in an
unspecified amount. The Company believes the allegations described
in the complaint are entirely without merit, and the defendants
intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 19, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division in Mercer County (Docket No. L-1083-11) against the
Company, LabCorp, Purchaser, and individual members of the
Company's board of directors. The action, captioned Harrison
Kletzel v. Orchid Cellmark Inc., et al., alleges that (i)
individual members of the Company's board of directors violated
their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, and due care owed
to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing to undertake an
appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a merger
candidate or in liquidation, (b) failing to engage in a meaningful
auction process and (c) failing to act independently, and, (ii)
LabCorp, the Company and Purchaser aided and abetted the
individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company
by Purchaser and LabCorp, (ii) to enjoin the implementation of the
deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement and deployment of
the Company's poison pill, (iii) to direct the individual
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to maximize
stockholder value in any proposed sale of the Company, (iv) to
impose a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiff and members
of the proposed class, upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, and (v) monetary
damages in an unspecified amount as well fees and costs, among
other relief. The Company believes the allegations described in
the complaint are entirely without merit, and the defendants
intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 20, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County,
Chancery Division against the Company, LabCorp, the Purchaser, and
individual members of the Company's Board of Directors (Docket No.
L-1099-11). The action, styled Greenberg v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc.,
et al., alleges that: (i) individual members of the Company's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of good faith
and loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by failing to: (a)
fully inform themselves of the Company's market value; (b) act in
the interests of equity owners; and (c) maximize shareholder
value; and (ii) LabCorp and the Company aided and abetted the
individual directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks:
(i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company by the Purchaser and
LabCorp; (ii) that the Merger Agreement be declared unlawful;
(iii) to prevent the transaction unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure to obtain the highest possible
price for the company; (iv) to rescind, to the extent already
implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof; and
(v) monetary damages in an unspecified amount as well as costs and
fees, among other relief. The Company believes the allegations
described in the complaint are entirely without merit, and the
defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 29, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6433-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Bruce Locke vs. Orchid Cellmark
Inc., et al., alleges that (i) certain individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
good faith, loyalty, fair dealing, due care and candor owed to the
Company's stockholders by (a) failing to secure the best
transaction available for the Company's stockholders and (b)
agreeing to unreasonable and preclusive deal protection measures
that will deter superior offers for the Company, and (ii) LabCorp
aided and abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, (a) entering into the
Merger Agreement and (b) otherwise rendering substantial
assistance to the Company's Board of Directors in connection with
the breaches.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition
of the Company by Purchaser and LabCorp, (ii) rescission, to the
extent already implemented, of the acquisition of the Company by
Purchaser and LabCorp, or alternatively, the awarding of
rescissory damages and appropriate compensatory damages to the
Company's stockholders, (iii) to require the individual defendants
to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, (iv) to require the individual defendants to
disclose all material information relating to the proposed
transaction and (v) fees and costs, among other relief.  The
Company believes the allegations described in the complaint are
entirely without merit, and the defendants intend to vigorously
defend such action.

The three actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware have been consolidated into one action, captioned In re
Orchid Cellmark Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Docket Number 6373-
VCN.  On May 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer.

On May 2, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company, LabCorp, the
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors (Docket No. 3:11-cv-02508-AET).  The action, styled
Tsatsis v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., alleges that: (i) individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their
fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty owed to the Company's
stockholders by failing to: (a) fully inform themselves of the
Company's market value, (b) act in the interests of equity owners
and (c) maximize shareholder value; (ii) individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duty through materially inadequate
disclosures and material disclosure omissions; (iii) LabCorp and
the Company aided and abetted the individual director's breaches
of fiduciary duty because LabCorp obtained sensitive non-public
information concerning the Company's operations and thus had the
advantage to acquire the Company at an unfair price; and (iv)
defendants violated section 14(e) of the Exchange Act by failing
to provide adequate disclosures in the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement dated April 19, 2011, rendering it materially false and
misleading.  Plaintiff seeks: (i) to have the Merger Agreement
declared unlawful and unenforceable; (ii) to enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the Merger Agreement or consummating the
transaction unless and until the Company adopts and implements a
procedure or process, such as an auction, to obtain the highest
possible price for the Company; (iii) to rescind, to the extent
already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms
thereof; and (iv) monetary damages in an unspecified amount as
well as costs, fees, and disbursements, among other relief.  The
Company believes the allegations described in the complaint are
entirely without merit, and the defendants intend to vigorously
defend such action.

On May 11, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division stayed the actions filed by the three shareholders in
that court: Bruce Ballard v. Orchid Cellmark, et al. ((Docket No.
C 000032 11), Harrison Kletzel v. Orchid Cellmark Inc., et al.,
(Docket No. L-1083-11), and Betty Greenberg v. Orchid Cellmark,
Inc., et al. (Docket No. L-1099-11), finding that the allegations
were substantially similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the
three actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery where the
motion for preliminary injunction was scheduled for argument on
May 12, 2011.  Under principles of comity and fairness and in
order to avoid duplicative litigation, the Superior Court of New
Jersey Chancery Division ordered the three actions pending in that
court be stayed until further order of the Court.

On May 12, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motion
for a preliminary injunction filed in the consolidated Silverberg,
Nannetti, and Locke actions finding there was no reasonable
likelihood of success on the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual directors of Orchid's Board of
Directors and thus no attendant likelihood of success on the
plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty by Orchid, LabCorp, and the Purchaser.  On May 13, 2011, the
plaintiffs in these actions filed a motion to appeal, on an
expedited basis, the denial of their motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On May 12, 2011, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed in
the United States District Court of New Jersey in Tsatsis v.
Orchid Cellmark, Inc., (Docket No. 3:11-cv-02508-AET-LHG), seeking
to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger Agreement
or consummating the transaction contemplated thereby.

Additionally, the Company has certain other claims against it
arising from the normal course of its business.  The ultimate
resolution of such matters, in the opinion of management, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial position and
liquidity, but could have a material impact on its results of
operations for any reporting period.


OVERHILL FARMS: Engaged in Discovery in "Agustiana" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc., is currently engaged in discovery in the
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay
minimum wage to the plaintiffs, 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 July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action" against the Company in which they
asserted claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties,
conversion and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs are
former employees who had been terminated one month earlier because
they had used invalid social security numbers in connection with
their employment with the Company.  They filed the case in Los
Angeles County on behalf of themselves and a class which they say
includes all non-exempt production and quality control workers who
were employed in California during the four-year period prior to
filing their complaint.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and
the motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a separate purported "class
action" in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company
in which she asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former production workers for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the
required time, unfair business practice in violation of Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and Labor
Code Section 2698, known as the Private Attorney General Act.
Salinas is a former employee who had been terminated because she
had used an invalid social security number in connection with her
employment with the Company.  Salinas seeks allegedly unpaid
wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are unspecified.  The
Salinas action has been consolidated with the Agustiana action.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the case.  The
Company believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs'
remaining claims and that the Company paid all wages due to these
employees.


PARNON ENERGY: Derivatives Trading Class Actions Pile Up
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Ciaccio, writing for Platts, reports that class-action
lawsuits filed against Parnon Energy and Arcadia Energy and the
companies' respective derivatives trading directors, Nicholas
Wildgoose and James Dyer, are piling up in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York, with four more such suits
coming after the first was submitted to the court last week.

The recent suits were filed separately by money management firms
AIS Futures in Wilton, Connecticut, California-based Cervino
Capital Management, independent crude trader Todd Kramer and
trader Gregory Galan of Garfield Heights, Ohio.

The lawsuits follow the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission's
May 24 filing of a civil action against the same parties, alleging
they created an "artificial spread prices" in WTI swaps in 2008
that led to improper profits of more than $50 million.  The claims
in the class-action suits mirror those in the CFTC complaint.

"The action arises from defendant's scheme to intentionally and
unlawfully manipulate and attempt to manipulate derivative
financial contract prices for [NYMEX WTI] between December 1, 2007
and May 31, 2008," according to the AIS suit.  The time frame of
the alleged manipulation is similar in all the of the class action
suits.

"During the class action period," AIS said in its suit, "WTI
prices reflected a relatively low supply of crude oil including
WTI at Cushing, Oklahoma (home of the NYMEX delivered contract).
In an attempt to take advantage of, and exacerbate the tight
supply, Messrs. Dyer and Wildgoose engineered a manipulative
strategy designed to affect WTI derivatives prices starting at
least by late 2007."

All of the plaintiffs claim to have been "injured" as a result of
the defendants "anti-manipulative acts and market manipulation."

The recent suits also follow another class action suit filed by
Stephen E. Ardizzone, a New York oil trader, on May 26.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 840 Victory Cross Country Motorcycles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Welsh at The Wall Street Journal reports that recent
recall announcements filed with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration include reports of flawed motorcycle
handlebar assemblies that could cause riders to suddenly lose
control.

Polaris Industries, a maker of motorcycles, snowmobiles, all-
terrain vehicles and other power-sports equipment, is recalling
certain Victory Cross Country motorcycles from the 2011 model year
because their handlebar clamps or risers may have been machined
improperly.

As a result, the clamps could allow the bars to move or slip
unexpectedly.  Such sudden movement of the handlebars could lead
to a crash.

The recall affects 840 bikes built from Jan. 1 through April 11,
2011.  Polaris says its dealers will replace defective riser and
clamp assemblies free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin
in June 2011.  Owners may contact Victory at 888-704-5290.

                           KTM Recall

Off-road motorcycle specialist KTM is recalling certain bikes from
the 2010 and 2011 model years because their handlebar clamps may
form cracks due to improper heat treatment during the
manufacturing process.  The problem can lead to the bars loosening
and moving around unexpectedly.

The recall includes 1,228 KTM 450 EXC, 530 EXC and 690 Enduro R,
and Husaberg FE 570 and 570s models built from November 2009
through October 2010.  Under the recall, which is to begin in June
2011, KTM dealers will replace the defective clamps free of
charge.  Customers can contact KTM at 888-985-6090.


PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE: Defends Amended "Phillips" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company was named a defendant in an amended
class action complaint filed on behalf of Illinois residents whose
death benefits were settled by retained assets accounts, according
to the Company's May 13, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by Prudential for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, Prudential wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide
class action raising substantially similar allegations brought by
the same plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was dismissed.  In December 2010, a purported state-wide
class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc.,
was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit,
Williamson County, Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations
under Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on
behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefits were
settled by retained assets accounts.  In January 2011, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In March 2011, the complaint was amended to
drop Prudential Financial as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant.  The matter is now captioned
Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.


RADIO ONE INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order relating to a global settlement in the
lawsuits against numerous companies, including Radio One Inc.,
over their initial public offerings, remain pending, 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 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted
initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s.
In the complaint filed against Radio One (as amended), the
plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs' claim
was based on allegations that Radio One's registration statement
and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by the underwriters, and the stock
allocation practices of the underwriters.  The complaint also
contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that these omissions
constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the court
entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and
directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an
agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio
One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003.  In
February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One
and most of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board
of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs.  The proposed settlement would have provided for the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their underwriters.  In September 2003,
in connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named
officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June
2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On February 24, 2006, the court
dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in
connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under
the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a Final
Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the district court's earlier decision certifying
as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."
Thereafter, the district court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the IPO Cases 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' rehearing petition, but
clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited
class in the district court.  Accordingly, the settlement was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and did not
receive final approval.

Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" on or
about August 14, 2007.  Radio One is not a defendant in the focus
cases.  In September 2007, Radio One's named officers and
directors again extended the tolling agreement with plaintiffs.
On or about September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the
classes alleged in the "focus cases" and to appoint class
representatives and class counsel in those cases.  The focus cases
issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the
class certification in December 2007.  On March 16, 2008, the
district court denied the motions to dismiss in the focus cases.
In August 2008, the parties to the IPO Cases began mediation
toward a global settlement of the IPO Cases.  In September 2008,
Radio One's board of directors approved in principle participation
in a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.  On October 2,
2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion.
In April 2009, a global settlement was reached in the IPO Cases
and submitted to the district court for approval.  On June 9,
2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published
and mailed to class members.  On September 10, 2009, the court
held a Final Fairness Hearing.  On October 6, 2009, the court
certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final
approval of the settlement.  On or about October 23, 2009, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, challenging the court's certification of the
settlement classes.  Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of
shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting to final
approval of the settlement.  If the settlement is affirmed on
appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims
against Radio One and its officers and directors with prejudice,
and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be
fully funded by insurance.


RODMAN & RENSHAW: Faces Suits Over IPO in China-Based Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
During 2011, Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc., has been named
as a party defendant in several litigations brought as class
actions relating to underwritten public offering that it
participated in involving China based businesses.  Each of these
actions is in the very preliminary stages and while the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses, the proceedings are at
a far too early stage to effectively evaluate the merits or
predict the outcome, 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 says there is no assurance that it will not be named
in incremental actions brought or that the result of the pending
actions or any future actions, or the costs of defense of those
actions, will not adversely affect the Company


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT JUICE: Rosen Law Firm Gives Update on Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 3 issued an update on the
securities class action filed by the firm on behalf of purchasers
of SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc. securities during the period from
March 31, 2010, to April 4, 2011.

To join the SkyPeople class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web
site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq.,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The Rosen Law Firm originally filed a class action lawsuit against
SkyPeople when an audit revealed that SkyPeople had engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions apparently benefiting its
Chief Executive Officer and one of its Directors at the expense of
shareholders.  The news of the related party transactions caused
SPU's stock price to fall from $4.41 to $3.57.

Then, on June 1, 2011, research group Absaroka raised serious
concerns that the Company may have dramatically overstated its
income, profits, and size.  The concerns, coming on the heels of
the Company's admission that it had engaged in undisclosed related
party transactions, caused the stock price to fall further,
damaging investors.

"We are evaluating the very serious allegations raised by Absaroka
to determine whether shareholders who purchased after the
announcement of the related party transactions but before
publication of Absaroka's report can benefit from this class
action," said Managing Attorney, Laurence Rosen, Esq.

If you wish to join the class action as serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than June 20, 2011.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  For more information
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Jonathan Horne, Esq., of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
jhorne@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
outcome.

CONTACT:  Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  jhorne@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


SMART ONLINE: Makes Payments Under Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc., disclosed that it has made certain payments
under a stipulation settling claims in the class action lawsuit
captioned Mary Jane Beauregard vs. Smart Online, Inc., et al.,
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 June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the lead plaintiff in the securities
class action involving the Company in the case captioned Mary Jane
Beauregard vs. Smart Online, Inc., et al, filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The Stipulation provides for the settlement of the Class Action on
certain terms.  The United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement on January 13, 2011 and the final settlement
hearing was scheduled for May 11, 2011.

The Stipulation provides for the certification of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's publicly-
traded securities between May 2, 2005 and September 28, 2007,
inclusive.  The settlement class will receive total consideration
of a cash payment of $350,000 to be made by the Company, a cash
payment of $112,500 to be made by Maxim Group, the transfer from
Henry Nouri to the class of 25,000 shares of Company common stock
and the issuance by the Company to the class of 1,475,000 shares
of Company common stock.  Under the terms of the Stipulation,
counsel for the settlement class may sell some or all of the
common stock received in the settlement before distribution to the
class, subject to the limitation that it cannot sell more than
10,000 shares on one day or 50,000 shares in 30 calendar days.
Subject to the terms of the Stipulation, the Company paid the lead
plaintiff $75,000 on July 14, 2010, $100,000 on September 15,
2010, $100,000 on December 14, 2010 and $75,000 on March 14, 2011.

The stipulation provides that all claims against the settling
defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.  The claims of the
lead plaintiff against Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and the
Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Sherb & Co., are not being dismissed and will continue.  The
Stipulation contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by the
Company or the other settling defendants.

On June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Dennis Michael Nouri, Reza Eric Nouri, Henry Nouri and Ronna
Loprete Nouri in settlement of claims filed by the Nouri Parties
against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware for advancement of legal expenses and indemnification.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment by the Company
of up to $1,400,000 for the benefit of the Parties.

On January 13, 2011, (the "Effective Date"), the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, presiding over
the Class Action suit, issued the Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing Notice.  Based upon the Nouri Settlement
Agreement, and the January 13, 2011, United States District Court,
Middle District of North Carolina Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing Notice, the following amounts were paid
for the benefit of the Nouri Parties: the amount of $500,000 was
paid on January 22, 2011, and $75,000 was paid on March 16, 2011,
and an additional $825,000 is payable in eleven fixed monthly
installments of $75,000 based on the Effective Date, with the last
four scheduled installments totaling $300,000 subject to reduction
to the extent that fees and disbursements for the Nouris' appeal
are below certain levels or if the appeal is not taken to final
adjudication.  The Settlement Agreement provides for the exchange
of mutual releases by the parties.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Unit Seeks Affirmation of Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by
three retired employees of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Sterling Fibers, Inc., remains pending, 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 21, 2007, three retired employees of Sterling Fibers,
Inc., one of the Company former subsidiaries, sued the Company,
several of its benefit plans and the plan administrators for those
plans in a class action suit, filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Case No.
H-07-0625).  The plaintiffs allege that the Company was not
permitted to increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance
based on a provision contained in an asset purchase agreement
between the Company, Sterling Fibers, Inc. and Cytec Industries
Inc. and certain of its affiliates, or Cytec, that governed the
purchase by Sterling Fibers, Inc. of Cytec's acrylic fibers
business in 1997.  During the Company's bankruptcy case in 2002,
the Company and Sterling Fibers, Inc., specifically rejected this
asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved that
rejection.  The plaintiffs claimed that the Company violated the
terms of its benefit plans, breached fiduciary duties governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and failed to comply
with sections of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with retiree
benefits, and sought damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  A trial for this matter was held during the
second week of November 2009 and, on July 1, 2010, the judge ruled
for the Company on the merits and dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal on July 16, 2010.
Briefing for this appeal was completed in the first quarter of
2011 and the Company does not expect oral arguments for the
appeal.

The Company says it is vigorously seeking affirmation of the trial
judge's rulings.  The Company is unable to state at this time if a
loss is probable or remote and is unable to determine the possible
range of loss related to this matter, if any.


TPI COMPOSITES: Files Motion to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mendenhall, writing for Newton Daily News, reports that
lawyers for TPI Composites in Newton have filed a motion in
federal Court to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges the
wind-blade manufacturer failed to compensate workers of overtime
hours worked.

The motion filed on May 25 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa -- Central Division in Des Moines claims
the petition filed by former employee Norman Davis IV "does not
contain sufficient factual allegations to show that Plaintiffs are
entitled to the relief sought."

TPI also claims in their dismissal motion that the Plaintiffs have
not correctly defined the party in the class action suit, alleging
the company "does not employ any of the named Plaintiffs or any
members of the purported class."

Mr. Davis originally filed the fair-wage suit on April 22 in
Jasper County District Court along with April Ann Wilcox and Gary
Motarie, employees at TPI's Newton facility.  They sought a jury
trial before TPI had the case removed from Jasper County into the
federal court system on May 18.

These recent developments come on the heels of positive job growth
data from TPI and other companies in Newton released by the Newton
Development Corporation in their June newsletter.

According to the NDC, TPI has reached 700 employees at their
Newton plant, nearly 200 more jobs than the goal of 504 reached on
Feb. 17 set as part a of a contract between TPI and the Department
of Economic Development to keep $4.6 million in state and local
incentives.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Defends Suits vs. Ocean Carriers in Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits arising from
the investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice over alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers, 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 April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full
and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The Company
has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the
subpoena.  To date, neither the company nor any of its employees
has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and the
Company will continue to cooperate with government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed
at least 40 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner
Services and the Company.  The actions alleged that the defendants
inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive
conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The actions,
which were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the
District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel filed a number of amended class action
complaints under seal.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the last operative consolidated complaint with the court.  On
April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted the
Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the claims
of the named plaintiffs.  This order will not become final and
appealable until a further order or judgment is entered by the
Court.  The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of
these actions, if necessary.

Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC,
Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and
their related companies entered into settlement agreements with
certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported
class of claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any
liability for the underlying claims.  All of these settlements
received Preliminary Approval from the court in August 2010, and
notices to the putative class members were mailed in September,
2010.  All settling defendants have opted to move forward with the
settlement.

Plaintiffs who have opted-out are likely to pursue claims against
the settling defendants.  It is not clear whether an individual
opt-out plaintiff would attempt to bring an action against the
Company in such a proceeding or even whether they could do so in
light of the Company's dismissal with prejudice from the
underlying MDL.  Moreover, it is not clear what, if any, impact
these settlements, whether or not finally approved, will have on
further prosecution of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the
Company, or on the trade, in general.

On March 15, 2011, Horizon Lines, LLC plead guilty to a charge of
violating federal antitrust laws with respect to the Puerto Rico
trade lane in which the Company operates.  Horizon Lines, LLC was
sentenced to pay a fine of $45 million, which was subsequently
reduced to $15 million payable over five years and was placed on
criminal probation.  It is unclear what, if any, impact the
Horizon Lines, LLC plea will have on the civil actions, on the
Company, or on the trade, in general.

On October 9, 2009, the Company received a Request for Information
and Production of Documents from the Puerto Rico Office of
Monopolistic Affairs.  The request relates to an investigation
into possible price fixing and unfair competition in the Puerto
Rico domestic ocean shipping business.  The Company has indicated
to the Puerto Rican authorities that it will cooperate fully with
this investigation and have provided requested documents to such
authorities.

The Company understands that all currently named defendants in the
indirect purchaser action entered into a settlement with the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and attorneys representing a putative
class of indirect purchasers to resolve all of the alleged claims
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the indirect purchasers
related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico trade lane.
The Company is not a party to the indirect purchaser litigation
and it is unclear what, if any, impact this settlement will have
on the future course of the investigation by the Puerto Rican
authorities.

Significant legal fees and costs are expected to be incurred in
connection with the DOJ investigation, the class actions, and the
Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation.  During
the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011, and 2010, costs were
approximately $25,000 and $380,000, respectively.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the DOJ investigation, the civil class actions, or the
Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation.
However, should this result in an unfavorable outcome for the
Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position and future operations.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Trial Set for March 2012 in "Larsen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial is currently scheduled for March 2012 in the putative class
action lawsuit filed by Cynthia Larsen against UnionBanCal
Corporation's major 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 March 31, 2011.

The putative class action titled Cynthia Larsen v. Union Bank,
N.A., was filed on July 15, 2009 by Union Bank customer Cynthia
Larsen.  In October 2009, the action was transferred from the
Northern District of California to the Multidistrict Litigation
action (MDL) in the Southern District of Florida.  Omnibus motions
to dismiss the complaints in many of the suits included in the
MDL, including Larsen, were denied on March 12, 2010.  Plaintiffs
allege that, by posting charges to their accounts in order from
highest to lowest amount, the Bank charged them more overdraft
fees than it would have charged them had the Bank posted items to
their accounts in chronological order.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts common-law causes of action for
breach of contract and breach of duty of an implied duty of good
faith, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq., as well as other statutory violations.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, return or refund of all improper overdraft
fees, disgorgement of profits derived from the Bank's alleged
conduct, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of other Union Bank
customers who were charged overdraft charges as a result of "re-
sequencing" within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Union Bank says it intends to vigorously defend the case.  Trial
is currently scheduled for March 2012.


VERENIUM CORP: Appeals From IPO-Related Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of class action lawsuits against
hundreds of companies, including Verenium Corporation, relating to
their initial public offering in 2000 and the late 1990s remain
pending, 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 June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December
2002 in a U.S. federal district court, or the Court.  This lawsuit
is part of a series of related lawsuits in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted an Initial Public Offering, or IPO
of their common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.  On August 31, 2005, the Court
reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the
modified settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final
Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the lower Court's earlier decision certifying as
class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."  The
Company is not one of the six focus cases.  Thereafter, the
District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO
Cases pending the outcome of the 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' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs
may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court.
Accordingly, the settlement as originally negotiated was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and will not be
finally approved.

On August 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six
focus cases, and thereafter moved for certification of the classes
and appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in those
cases.  The six focus case issuers filed motions to dismiss the
claims against them in November 2007 and an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007.
The Court denied the motions to dismiss on March 16, 2008.  On
October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification
motion.  On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs
informed the district court that a settlement of the IPO Cases had
been agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the
parties and preliminary and final approval by the court.  On
April 2, 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement
agreement to the court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.
On June 11, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement to
be published and mailed.  The District Court held a final fairness
hearing on September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District
Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted
final approval to the settlement.  On or about October 23, 2009,
three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, objecting to the District Court's final
approval order and, in particular, asserting that the District
Court's certification of the settlement classes violates the
Second Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO
Cases.  Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders
also filed direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the
settlement.  If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the
settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims against the
Company and its officers and directors with prejudice, and the
Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully
funded by insurance.

The Company disclosed that it is covered by a claims-made
liability insurance policy which it believes will satisfy any
potential liability of the Company under this settlement.  Due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the
objecting shareholders are seeking to challenge the settlement on
appeal, the Company says the ultimate outcome of this matter
cannot be predicted.


YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MT: Settles Deputies' Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zach Benoit, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that
Yellowstone County has settled part of a class action lawsuit
filed in September in federal court by 29 sheriff's deputies over
wage policies.

According to a settlement agreement filed last week in U.S.
District Court, the county will pay a total of $312,500 to the 29
deputies and their attorneys.

Deputy Jamie Swecker filed the lawsuit, saying that for years,
deputies had to be at 15-minute briefing sessions before their
shifts began and were not paid for them.

Then Sheriff Jay Bell changed the policy around the same time the
lawsuit was filed.

The settlement documents say that the deputies will be paid for
those meetings for the time from Oct. 1, 2007, and Sept. 30, 2010.
Each deputy will receive between $1,332 and $11,594, depending on
the person's wages and participation in nonpatrol special
assignments that did not include the briefings.

Mr. Swecker claimed in the suit that, before Mr. Bell made the
policy change, commanders wouldn't let deputies claim the 15-
minute sessions on their time sheets.

The lawsuit named Yellowstone County, Mr. Bell and administrative
assistant, Mary Matteson, as defendants.

Attorneys representing both sides signed the settlement agreement,
which was filed on June 3.

In November, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull ordered that
all eligible deputies within the office should be included in the
lawsuit should they choose to join, making the lawsuit a class
action.

The settlement says that it isn't "an admission of liability" by
the county, but instead is "compromising disputed wage claims"
under federal and state wage laws, as well as a measure to avoid
future lawsuits.

The agreement does not, however, settle Mr. Swecker's claims that
he faced illegal retaliation for looking into the matter.  The
lawsuit alleges that Ms. Matteson tried to get him in trouble for
it and that Mr. Bell asked state investigators to look into
Mr. Swecker and others for accessing a computer database
improperly.

Court proceedings for those matters are expected to continue later
this year.


YONGYE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 3 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of Yongye International, Inc. during
the period from August 11, 2010 through May 18, 2011, inclusive,
and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of
federal securities laws.

To join the Yongye class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web
site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action, 212-686-106,
szhang@rosenlegal.com

The case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Yongye and its officers and directors for issuing false
and misleading information to investors about the financial and
business condition of the Company.  The Complaint alleges that (a)
Yongye's financial results as reported to the SEC were
inconsistent with the Company's ability to produce the tonnage
reported as shipments of sales; (b) Yongye's reported financial
statements were grossly inflated by including revenue it had not
earned; and (c) Yongye's business was not growing at the rate
represented by defendants.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 25, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-
3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         Esq.275 Madison Avenue
         34th Floor New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Telephone: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Illinois Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
YTB International Inc. is awaiting a federal court's order on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that was originally filed
in an Illinois state court, according to its May 13, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended  March 31, 2011.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the Company, three Company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  On August 14, 2008, a second,
substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The two cases have now been consolidated
and are proceeding together before the same judge.  The plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100
million.  On February 9, 2009, the Company filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's
ruling.  On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The
amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the
dismissed complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its
own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint
does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading
standards.  On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for
leave with the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court
granted their motions and a second amended complaint was filed on
December 24, 2009.  On February 12, 2010, the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On
April 19, 2010, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all
the out-of-state plaintiffs.  As a result, there is only one
remaining plaintiff who is a citizen of Illinois.  Consequently,
the Court has requested further briefing on the issue of whether
the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both
plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of the same state.  The
additional briefing was due on May 19, 2010.  On May 26, 2010, the
Court dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit.  Oral
argument for the appeal occurred on February 25, 2011.

Additionally, on June 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs have filed a new
class action complaint with substantially the same allegations in
Illinois state court.  This state court complaint has been removed
to Federal Court and motions to dismiss the suit are currently
pending before the Court.



                             *********

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  * * *