CAR_Public/120419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 77

                             Headlines

A123 SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Signs MOU to Settle Price Fixing Class Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Denial of Motion for New Trial Upheld
ANGELS BASEBALL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
APPLE INC: To Dispute Ruling on Class Action Over In-App Purchases

BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
CHASE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Convenience Checks
CHINA SKY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
COMCAST CORP: Judge Allows Class Action to Go to Jury Trial
DUPONT: Selects Panel to Decide on Medical Monitoring

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Expects OK of Suits Settlement in Early 2012
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Wage and Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Washington Court Approved $1.1-MM Settlement
ENDEMOL USA: Two Class Action Settlements Over Games Approved
ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action

FACEBOOK: Advertisers' Request for Class Action Status Denied
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Conducted Study on Teen Smoking Habits in 1977
MICROSOFT: Oakland Gets Share of Class Action Settlement
MIDAS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TBC Merger
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Alex Karras Joins Concussion Class Action

OMEGA FLEX: Settles Suit vs. Former Insurer for $4.7 Million
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Still Named Co-Conspirator in Suits
REX ENERGY: "Cardinale" Suit in Preliminary Stages of Discovery
SAKS INC: Faces New FLSA-Violation Class Suit in New York
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Overdraft Suit Dismissal Bid

SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Large Investors Support Class Action
SUCCESSFACTORS INC: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Class Suits
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Decision in Suit vs. Comdata
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Defends Suits Over Fuel Temperature
TRIAD GUARANTY: Seeks Dismissal From Calif. & Penn. Suits

TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
U.S. SOCIAL SERVICES: Damages Award in Toxic Tort Suit Upheld
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers File for Settlement Eligibility
UNITED STATES: Mid-May Oral Arguments Set for Cobell Settlement

VANCOUVER POLICE: Revises Strip Search Policy After Class Action
VICTORIAVILLE GAS STATIONS: Fined for Gas Price-Fixing Conspiracy
VITACOST.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Remains Pending
W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Defends Against Abuse Class Action
WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defends Piedmont REIT Suit

WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: "Hodges" Class Suit Dismissed in December
YONGYE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

* 100 Federal Class Actions Filed Last Year, PwC Study Reveals
* CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settles Safe City Strike Force Suit


                          *********

A123 SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (1:12-cv-10591) in the United States
District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all
persons who purchased A123 Systems, Inc. securities between
February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012 inclusive.  This class action
is brought under Sections (10)b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased A123 securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 1, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

A123 designs, develops, manufactures and sells advanced,
rechargeable lithium ion batteries and battery systems.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material information regarding manufacturing flaws in its Livonia,
Michigan facility.

On March 26, 2012, the Company disclosed that it would incur costs
of over $55 million in the next several quarters to replace
battery modules and packs that might be defective.  Specifically,
five auto customers received parts that likely contained defective
prismatic cells.

The $55 million represents approximately one quarter of the
Company's projected annual revenue for 2012, which A123 has
estimated to be between $230 million and $300 million.  On these
revelations, A123 shares declined $0.21 per share or more than
12%, to close at $1.49 per share on March 26, 2012.

On March 28, 2012, an analyst at Deutsche Bank wrote that the
Company may be unable to raise capital as a result of this charge
and could lose contracts as a result of the recall.  As a result
of this news, the Company's stock declined an additional $0.18 per
share or nearly 13%, to close at $1.22 per share on March 28,
2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm represents the rights of the victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington,
D.C.


AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Signs MOU to Settle Price Fixing Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. entered
into a memorandum of understanding in January 2012 to resolve a
multidistrict litigation over price fixing claims, according to
the Company's March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by S&E Quick
Lube Distributors, Inc. of Utah, against several auto parts
manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for
replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  Several auto
parts companies are named as defendants, including Champion
Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp
LLC ("Wix Filtration"), one of the Company's subsidiaries.  The
lawsuit is currently pending as a consolidated Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") Proceeding in Chicago, IL, because of multiple
"tag-along" filings in several jurisdictions.  Two lawsuits have
also been filed in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Wix Filtration, along with other named defendants, has filed
various motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints, which were
denied by the court in December 2009.  Several defendants,
including Wix Filtration, refiled motions to dismiss based upon
plaintiffs' most recent amended complaint.  The court denied those
motions in September 2010.  Discovery in the action continues.  In
June 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted the plaintiffs'
main witness, William Burch, for making false statements in
connection with the litigation.  Mr. Burch pleaded guilty, was
sentenced to two years in prison and the parties are now
considering the implications.  Three defendants to the action,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc. and Donaldson
Company settled the claims against them for minimal payments in
the fall of 2011.

In January 2012, all parties to the lawsuit participated in a
settlement conference with the Court without success.  Shortly
afterwards, defendants Wix Filtration, Honeywell and Champion,
were able to combine their contributions toward settlement to
reach an agreement with plaintiffs to avoid the cost of further
litigation.  The parties have signed a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Denial of Motion for New Trial Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
In an insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff Building Materials
Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation appealed
from a judgment of no cause of action entered after a lengthy jury
trial; and defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, cross-appealed from an order denying its motion
for a new trial on its counterclaim.

In a March 13, 2012 opinion, the Superior Court of New Jersey
affirmed the rulings that were appealed and cross-appealed.

The case is captioned BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
d/b/a GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-
Respondent v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, P.A., et al., Defendant-
Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Docket No. A-4444-09T3 (NJ Superior
Ct, App. Div.).  GAF is a manufacturer of organic and fiberglass
roofing shingles.  The case alleges that GAF sold defective
roofing shingles.

A copy of the Court's March 13, 2012 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/SWHtIBfrom Leagle.com.


ANGELS BASEBALL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
With baseball season starting, the final approval of a class
action settlement benefiting baseball fans who use wheelchairs
could not have come at a better time.

On April 13, 2012, the United States District Court of the Central
District of California granted final approval of the class action
settlement agreement in the lawsuit (Case No. SACV 10-0853 DOC
(ANx)) filed by J. Paul Charlebois against Angels Baseball LP and
the City of Anaheim on behalf of a nationwide class of wheelchair
users.

As a result of the settlement, for the first time, Angels Baseball
will provide in-seat food and beverage service to 32 wheelchair
and 32 companion seats on its Terrace Level.

Diamond Club Tickets for wheelchair users and their companions
will be sold at a discounted rate of $50.00 per game through the
Angels Ticket Office for the entire season.  The Diamond Club
seats are located directly behind home plate and usually sell for
$150.00.  The settlement provides that any future price increases
for the discounted wheelchair accessible seats in the Diamond Club
will be equal to the weighted average of Club Level tickets, which
are priced similarly to the $50.00 ticket.

The discounted Diamond Club Tickets can be purchased on-line
through the Angels Ticket Office by e-mailing a request to
diamondclubaccess@angels.com and providing verification of the
need for the use of a wheelchair.

Wheelchair accessible and companion seating for seats other than
the discounted Diamond Club tickets will now be available for the
first time for purchase on-line, in the same manner available to
the general public, through Ticketmaster.


APPLE INC: To Dispute Ruling on Class Action Over In-App Purchases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Kahn, writing for 9to5mac, reports that Apple is expected
to submit a defense on May 24 for a class-action lawsuit filed
last year over iOS games using the freemium model, which parents
argued allowed children to easily rack up hundreds or thousands of
dollars with in-app purchases.  Apps would normally require a
password before completing an in-app purchase, but iOS previously
provided a 15-minute window after users entered their password,
which subsequently allowed any in-app purchases within the time
frame to complete without needing the password again.  Of course,
Apple no longer offers the 15-minute window.  Eric Goldman's blog
(via PaidContent) reported last week that Apple's request to
dismiss the class-action suit, which alleges the company violated
consumer protection laws, was refused.  U.S. District Judge Edward
Da Vila upheld four of the five claims from parents involved in
the case.

Contrary to Apple's argument, Plaintiffs have alleged with
specificity which misrepresentations they were exposed to, their
reliance on those misrepresentations, and the resulting harm.
Plaintiffs pled specific facts that Apple "actively advertis[ed],
market[ed] and promot[ed] its bait Apps as 'free' or nominal.
PaidContent explained Apple is "relying on contract law arguments
such as whether each in-app purchase was a transaction or (as
Apple argues) whether the overall iTunes terms of service should
apply to all the purchases.  There is also a dispute about how
contract law applies to minors."


BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
BIDZ.com, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In May and June 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)).  On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases.  The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.
On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend.  On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint.  On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint and on September 8, 2010, the
Plaintiff filed another amended complaint.  On September 27, 2010,
the Company filed another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint,
which was heard by the Court on November 1, 2010.  The Court took
the Company's Motion under submission in November 2010, and in
February 2011 the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.

In November 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case and is waiting for the Court to approve and
finalize the settlement.


CHASE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Convenience Checks
------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims Chase Bank sends mass offers of credit,
enclosing checks that are "ready to go," then refuses to honor the
check, leaving its victims liable for returned check fees,
insufficient funds fees, and late fees on mortgage payments.

Lead plaintiff Gerald Maher sued Chase Bank USA, National
Association and Chase Bankcard Services, alleging common law
fraud, and deceptive and unfair trade.

Mr. Maher claims Chase sent him a form solicitation in April 2009,
which included several checks.

"These checks are ready to go," the solicitation letter stated.
"You can write them for any amount up to the unused portion of
your credit line.  Just make sure you have enough available credit
for the transaction(s), interest, and any related fees."

Mr. Maher says he called Chase, which told him "that he could use
a convenience check exemplified by Exhibit A in an amount up to
$5,000."

So he wrote a check to himself for $2,500 and cashed the check at
his bank, Palos Bank and Trust, Mr. Maher says.

But "Upon Palos Bank and Trust's presentment of the check for
payment to Chase on or about April 15, 2009, Chase refused to
honor check #8709, drawn on Chase's account number 365XXXXXXXX917,
for the amount of $2,500," Mr. Maher says.

"Thus, Chase mailed plaintiff and other consumers (both in
Illinois and nationally) form convenience checks that were
represented as being available for use in amounts up to the
consumers then unused credit line.  However, without advanced
notice, Chase deceptively and unfairly chose not to honor such
checks, thereby proximately causing damage to these consumers
(i.e. return check fees, NSF [not sufficient funds] fees, late
fees).  For instance, plaintiff's automatic payments, including
his mortgage payment, were marked NSF as a result of Chase's
conduct.

"In furtherance of and/or in an attempt to cover up their unfair
and deceptive practice of mailing consumers form convenience
checks that they intended consumers to use, but that were not
'ready to go' 'for any amount up to the unused portion of [the
consumers'] credit line,' Chase sought to provide a pretext for
its refusal to honor such convenience checks, including the one
which plaintiff used on April 14, 2009."

Mr. Maher adds: "Chase sent materially identical or substantially
similar materials . . . to hundreds, if not thousands of consumers
in the State of Illinois and across the continental United States.
Thus, in furtherance of and/or in an attempt to fraudulently
conceal Chase's prior unfair, deceptive and damaging conduct (with
consumers who had been damaged by having the checks used with
third parties which Chase would not honor), Chase lowered the
consumers' available credit limit below the amount for which the
convenience check had been written as a pretext for having
dishonored the checks.  . . .

"Presumably to avoid the cost of Chase paying to pre-check the
credit scores of every person to whom they sent convenience checks
while simultaneously maximizing their profits by simplifying the
perception of 'convenience' for the checks, Chase sent the checks
without either:

"a. Requiring an additional step for interested consumers -- such
as an advanced credit check; or

"b. Informing recipients that the checks could not be as
'conveniently' used as their receipt implied, but that there was a
risk of the check being refused after its use.

"In fact, as demonstrated by the plaintiff's advanced call to
Chase, when Chase presented with the opportunity to inform the
plaintiff of the truth, they suppressed the material fact that it
was Chase's procedure not to perform their final credit check of
any consumer until after the consumer used the check and the check
was in turn presented to Chase for payment."

Mr. Maher seeks punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Maher v. Chase Bank USA, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-02684 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/16/xchase.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          Allison A. Krumhorn, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
          180 West Washington, Suite700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5808

               - and -

          Christopher Kruger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER KRUGER
          2022 Dodge Avenue
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 420-1763
          E-mail: ckruger@ameritech.net


CHINA SKY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
April 24, 2012 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit
the firm filed on behalf of investors who purchased the securities
of China Sky One Medical, Inc. securities between April 16, 2009
and February 14, 2012, inclusive.

To join the China Sky One class action, visit the firm's Web site
at http://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.

The Complaint alleges that, in violation of the federal securities
laws: (1) the Company improperly inflated earnings; (2) the
Company's gross margins were inflated; (3) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information entered
the market the price of China Sky One securities dropped, causing
investor losses.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2012.  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.
        The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
        New York, New York 10016
        Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
        E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

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


COMCAST CORP: Judge Allows Class Action to Go to Jury Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Key, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled on April 12 that portions of
two counts of a three-count class-action lawsuit alleging
antitrust violations by Comcast Corp. can go to a jury trial,
according to a report on Philly.com.

Judge John R. Padova Jr. also granted summary judgments to Comcast
on portions of two counts of the lawsuit, which was filed nine
years ago on behalf of customers of the Philadelphia-based
telecommunications, entertainment and media giant who live in the
Philadelphia television market.

The suit alleges that Comcast violated the antitrust act through
deals by which it acquired cable-television systems in the
Philadelphia market and by its actions in dealing with the
competitive threat posed by what is now RCN Telecom Services LLC,
which built its own cable systems in part of the market.

Judge Padova ruled that the suit can proceed to trial on the issue
of whether Comcast's actions in building a cluster of cable
systems in the Philadelphia market constituted a horizontal
allocation of markets.  But he rejected the claim that building
the cluster was, per se, a violation of the Sherman Act because
Comcast showed the cluster created economic efficiencies and
allowed it to offer new products and services.

Judge Padova also said portions of two counts alleging
monopolization and attempted monopolization by Comcast in offering
discounts to potential RCN customers may proceed to trial.  He
ruled in Comcast's favor on portions of the counts contending that
Comcast's clustering, blocking RCN's access to cable-installation
contractors and licensing its local sports channel to RCN
constituted monopolization and attempted monopolization, granting
the company's request for summary judgment.

"We are gratified at the court's ruling dismissing several of
plaintiff's claims and limiting those that remain," Comcast said
in an e-mail.  "We look forward to defending the smaller claims
that remain and to winning a favorable ruling or verdict on those
as well."


DUPONT: Selects Panel to Decide on Medical Monitoring
-----------------------------------------------------
The Marietta Times reports that DuPont and attorneys who
represented area residents in the C8 class-action lawsuit
announced on April 12 they have jointly selected a three-member
panel of physicians to determine "the nature and extent of
whatever medical monitoring may be appropriate" for class members
under the terms of the lawsuit settlement.

The class-action lawsuit, filed over releases of ammonium
perfluorooctanoate, also known as C8, from DuPont Washington
Works, was settled in 2005.  As part of that settlement, a three-
member independent panel of epidemiologists was jointly chosen by
the parties.

The C8 Science Panel is to determine whether there are any
probable links between C8 exposure and human disease.

The newly appointed C8 Medical Panel will determine the nature and
extent of any medical monitoring that would be appropriate for
class members for any disease of which the C8 Science Panel finds
a probable link.

The C8 Medical Panel members are:

Dr. Dean Baker, a professor of medicine, pediatrics and
epidemiology at the University of California, Irvine, School of
Medicine.  He is also director of the UC Irvine Center for
Occupational and Environmental Health, a state-mandated center for
the study and prevention of occupational and environmental
exposures, diseases and injuries.  For more than three decades,
Dr. Baker has conducted substantive and methodological research in
occupational and environmental health particularly on
environmental exposures and diseases of children and work-related
diseases of adults.

Dr. Melissa McDiarmid is a professor of medicine, epidemiology and
public health at the University of Maryland.  She is also director
of the school's Occupational/Environmental Health Program.  From
1991-1996 Dr. McDiarmid was director of the Office of Occupational
Medicine for the United States Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.

Dr. Harold Sox, a professor of medicine emeritus at Dartmouth
Medical School and the associate director for faculty at Dartmouth
Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.  Dr. Sox was
the president of the American College of Physicians from 1998-
1999.  He was chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
from 1990-1995.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Expects OK of Suits Settlement in Early 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2011, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (the
Company or EMSC) entered into a Merger Agreement with CDRT
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation, or Parent, and
CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, or Sub.  Parent and Sub are and were,
respectively, affiliates of investment funds sponsored by, or
affiliated with, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC, or the CD&R
Affiliates.  On May 25, 2011, pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Sub merged with and into EMSC, with EMSC as the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, or the
Merger.  All of the outstanding common stock of Parent is owned by
CDRT Holding Corporation, or Holding, which is owned by the CD&R
Affiliates, EMSC management and directors.

Eleven purported shareholder class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of February 13, 2011, among EMSC, CDRT Acquisition
Corporation and CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Agreement,
have been filed in state court in Delaware and federal and state
courts in Colorado against various combinations of EMSC, the
members of the Company's board of directors, and other parties.
Seven actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
beginning on February 22, 2011, which were consolidated into one
action entitled In re Emergency Medical Services Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.  On
April 4, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed their consolidated
class action complaint.  Two actions, entitled Scott A. Halliday
v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No.
2011CV316 (filed on February 15, 2011), and Alma C. Howell v.
William Sanger, et. al., Case No. 2011CV488 (filed on March 1,
2011), were filed in the District Court, Arapahoe County,
Colorado.  Two other actions, entitled Michael Wooten v. Emergency
Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-CV-00412 (filed
on February 17, 2011), and Neal Greenberg v. Emergency Medical
Services Corporation, et. al., Case No. 11-CV-00496 (filed on
February 28, 2011), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado and have been consolidated.

These actions generally allege that the directors of EMSC, Onex
Corporation and/or Onex Corporation's subsidiaries breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things: approving the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, which allegedly
were financially unfair to EMSC and its public stockholders;
agreeing to provisions in the Merger Agreement that would
allegedly prevent the board from considering other offers;
permitting the unitholders agreement (which secured the majority
votes in favor of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement
(the "Merger")) and failing to require a provision in the Merger
Agreement requiring that a majority of the public stockholders
approve the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement;
and/or making allegedly materially inadequate disclosures.  These
actions further allege that certain other defendants aided and
abetted these breaches.  In addition, the two actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado contain
individual claims brought under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, pertaining to the
purported dissemination of allegedly misleading proxy materials.
These actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve these
lawsuits, and believe that resolution will be approved by the
Courts in early 2012.

No further updates were reported in the March 16, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Wage and Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against Emergency Medical Services Corporations' subsidiary,
American Medical Response, Inc., or AMR, and certain subsidiaries
in California alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws.  On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a lawsuit in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on
July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22,
2009, Laura Karapetian filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and on March 11,
2010, Melanie Aguilar filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.  The Banta and
Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the Bartoni case in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda.
At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases.  Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities
failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation
for missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the
classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for
violations of wage hour laws.  The Company says it is unable at
this time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Washington Court Approved $1.1-MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $1.1 million settlement resolving a class action lawsuit against
a subsidiary of Emergency Medical Services Corporation was
recently approved and finalized by a Washington court, according
to the Company's March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On December 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action
was commenced against the Company's subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc., or AMR, in Spokane, Washington, in Washington
State Court, Spokane County.  The complaint alleged that AMR
billed patients and third party payors for transports it conducted
between 1998 and 2005 at higher rates than contractually
permitted.  The court has certified a class in this case which is
comprised of approximately 15,000 Spokane County residents.  In
September 2010, the Company reached an agreement with class
representatives to resolve the claims for approximately $1.1
million, which amount includes all remaining refunds due to class
members and attorney's fees for the plaintiffs' counsel.  The
settlement was recently approved and finalized by the court.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


ENDEMOL USA: Two Class Action Settlements Over Games Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP and William A. Pannell, P.C. on April 13 disclosed
that court-approved settlements have been finalized in two class
actions alleging that games offered to viewers of two network
television programs were illegal lotteries under California law.
The games covered by the settlements are:

"Lucky Case Game" on "Deal Or No Deal" - December 2005 - January
2008

"American Idol Challenge" on "American Idol" - February 2007 - May
2007

The settlements provide that any person who paid premium text
message charges (usually 99 cents) to enter the games, and did not
win a prize or previously opt-out, may submit a claim for full
refund of the charges.  The settlements are not admissions of
liability by the defendants.  Claims can be filed as follows:

"Lucky Case Game" -
     www.LuckyCaseGameSettlement.com  or 877-248-5358

"American Idol Challenge" -
     www.AmericanIdolChallengeSettlement.com or 877-264-4185

Claims must be submitted by the deadline of August 10, 2012.

Simply voting for a contestant on "American Idol" does not make
someone eligible for payments in the "American Idol Challenge"
settlement.  Only persons who paid premium text-message charges to
play the "American Idol Challenge" game, and did not win a prize
or previously opt-out of the class action, are eligible.

Lead class counsel are Milberg LLP and William A. Pannell, P.C.
The lawsuits are Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, Inc., et al.,
Case no. 2:07-cv-03537-JHN-VBKx, and Couch v. Telescope, Inc., et
al., Case no. 2:07-cv-03916-JHN-VBKx, pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
Enterprise Financial Services Corp, has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Enterprise securities between
April 20, 2010 and January 25, 2012, inclusive.

Enterprise operates as the holding company for Enterprise Bank &
Trust, which purports to provide banking and wealth management
services to individuals and business customers in the St. Louis,
Kansas City and Phoenix metropolitan markets.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Enterprise's business, operations and
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
improperly recording income on loans covered under loss share
agreements with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
("FDIC"); (2) as a result, the Company's income was overstated;
(3) as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5),
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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.  If you purchased Enterprise securities between April
20, 2010 and January 25, 2012, you have until June 11, 2012, to
move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a member of the class you
need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


FACEBOOK: Advertisers' Request for Class Action Status Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook,
which runs the world's largest social networking Web site, won a
court ruling on April 13 rejecting a bid by thousands of
advertisers to sue the company as a group for overcharging them.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland denied the
advertisers' request for class-action status, saying they failed
to show they had enough in common to sue for breach of contract
and violating California's unfair competition law.

"The court is persuaded by Facebook's argument that plaintiffs
have not shown that they have a viable method for proving each
class member's recovery," Judge Hamilton wrote.  "The need to
determine both liability and damages on an individualized basis
makes this case inappropriate for class treatment."

Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- a lawyer for the
advertisers, declined to comment.  Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes
said the company is reviewing the decision.

Class certification often leads to higher recoveries and allows
plaintiffs to cut legal bills.

Facebook is expected this year to conduct perhaps the most
anticipated U.S. initial public offering ever.  The Menlo Park-
based company is valued at $95.8 billion, according to SharesPost,
which tracks valuations of private companies.

In their 2009 lawsuit, the advertisers accused Facebook of
overcharging them on their "cost-per-click" contracts, under which
they paid fees each time users clicked their ads.

According to the advertisers, Facebook improperly imposed charges
for nonexistent clicks, for clicked ads that never opened, for
clicks caused by server problems, and for accidental multiple
clicks by individual users, among other types of clicks.

But citing a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Wal-Mart
Stores Inc that limited class-action litigation, Judge Hamilton
said the advertisers showed neither a "systemic breach of
contract" nor enough similarity among the claims raised.

"There is no way to conduct this type of highly specialized and
individualized analysis for each of the thousands of advertisers
in the proposed class," she said.

Judge Hamilton scheduled a May 17 conference to discuss how best
the case should proceed.

The case is In re: Facebook Inc PPC Advertising Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 09-3043.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Conducted Study on Teen Smoking Habits in 1977
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Derfel, writing for Postmedia News, reports that lawyers for
plaintiffs in a $27 billion class action against Imperial and two
other Canadian tobacco companies have deposited as evidence a
study that Imperial Tobacco commissioned in 1977 on the smoking
habits of teens and their perceptions toward cigarette
advertising.

Imperial hired a Montreal firm, Kwechansky Marketing Research
Inc., to carry out surveys of teen smokers in Toronto and
Peterborough, Ont., the Quebec Superior Court heard Thursday. The
report was titled Project 16.

"Since how the beginning smoker feels today has implications for
the future of the industry, it follows that a study of this area
would be of much interest," says the introduction to the 97-page
report.

"Project 16 was designed to do exactly that: learn everything
there was to learn about how smoking begins, how high school
students feel about being smokers, and how they foresee their use
of tobacco in the future."

The boys and girls, ages 16 and 17, were specifically asked about
one particular cigarette ad, for the brand Players, showing a
horse.

"This was perceived most often as the most teen-oriented cigarette
ad, and as teen-oriented as any other ad," the study concludes.
"It depicted honesty, freedom and no one around to 'hassle' them.
Besides, riding is something young people do, not parents."

Also on April 12, a retired executive with Imperial Tobacco
testified in Quebec Superior Court that his company never aimed
its advertising at teens but rather toward "young adults."

"Our advertising was directed to adult smokers because this (is)
an adult project," said Anthony Kalhok, who served as vice-
president of marketing for Montreal-based Imperial in the 1970s.

"We only marketed to the young adult population," he added in
response to another question by lawyer Bruce Johnston.  "We did
not market to teens."

The Imperial study found some of the teen smokers first tried
cigarettes when they were as young as five.


MICROSOFT: Oakland Gets Share of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Artz, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that the city
of Oakland will receive $201,691 under the settlement terms of a
class-action lawsuit California cities and counties brought
against Microsoft, the Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker
announced on April 10.

The lawsuit accused Microsoft of using its monopolistic control of
the software industry to illegally charge inflated prices.

Microsoft agreed to pay $70 million to state agencies to settle
the lawsuit, with the government agencies dividing the award based
on the number of Microsoft products they purchased during a
specified time period.


MIDAS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over TBC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a
shareholder class action claims Midas is merging with TBC Corp. to
give corporate officers a big "payday," and because Midas'
company's financial adviser, J.P. Morgan Securities, has a large
financial interest in the deal.

Lead plaintiff Jacob Scheiner sued Midas, TBC Corp., Gearshift
Merger Corp., J.P Morgan Securities and five Midas officers, in
Federal Court.

Midas operates and franchises more than 2,300 auto shops in 15
countries.  TBC is one of the largest sellers of auto tires in the
United States.  It runs Big O Tires, Tire Kingdom, and other
outlets, according to the TBC Web site.

The Midas board on March 12 unanimously approved TBC's buyout
offer, for $11.50 a share, or $310 million, plus "the assumption
of approximately $137 million in debt and pension liabilities,"
according to the complaint.

Mr. Scheiner claims $11.50 per share is too cheap, "at a time when
Midas is experiencing financial success and executing on its
growth strategy through value priced oil changes and co-branding."

He claims that "the company and the individual defendants
undertook an unfair process engineered towards consummating a
merger with favored TBC that germinated from the long tenure of
Midas' lead director Defendant [Robert] Schoeberl on TBC's board
and featured the engagement of a seriously conflicted financial
advisor with an enormous financial interest in TBC's parent
company Sumitomo."

J.P Morgan has a 7 percent interest in Sumitomo, worth $1.2
billion, according to merger documents cited in the complaint.

"J.P Morgan's ownership interest in Sumitomo coupled with its
interest in the Share Collar Transaction is, at best, a
potentially serious conflict of interest as it provided the bank
with a strong financial incentive to steer the Board and/or the
Special Committee away from other bidders or strategic
alternatives and towards a transaction with TBC, regardless of the
merits of these other competing strategies or bids," the complaint
states.

"It is especially egregious that the individual defendants, in
breach of their fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the class,
did not seek a separate fairness opinion from an independent and
unconflicted financial advisor . . .

"The Board -- tasked with the unremitting duty to obtain the
maximum price reasonably obtainable for Midas' shareholders --
simply had no business relying upon a financial advisor with such
conflicts of interest."

Mr. Scheiner claims Midas' executive management team will
personally benefit from the merger at shareholders' expense.

"Having decided to put itself up for sale in August of 2011, Midas
insiders were interested in deal certainty to achieve their exit
strategy and advance their own interest, in breach of their
fiduciary duties and to the detriment of plaintiff and the class.
Initiating a sham 'auction' process and tilting the subsequent
process in favor of TBC (including reliance on an advisor beholden
to TBC) was the surest path for insiders to secure their change in
control payday," the complaint states.

Mr. Scheiner wants the deal enjoined, and class damages for
violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Scheiner Ira v. Midas, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-02653 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/16/xmidas.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lsmollar@pomlaw.com
                  jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob T. Fogel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACOB T. FOGEL
          26 Court Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11242

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com
                  racocelli@weisslurie.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Alex Karras Joins Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Alex Karras of the Detroit Lions
and "Webster" joined a class action lawsuit against the NFL filed
in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

To a generation of TV and film fans, Alex Karras will forever be
the loving adoptive dad on the 1980s sitcom "Webster" or the big
guy who punched a horse in 1974's "Blazing Saddles."  Before his
acting days, he was a football star, a three-time All-Pro
defensive tackle for the Detroit Lions in the 1960s.

Now 76, and diagnosed with dementia, Mr. Karras is taking on the
role of lead plaintiff: He and his wife, Susan Clark, are two of
119 people who filed suit on April 12 in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia, the latest complaint brought against the NFL by ex-
players who say the league didn't do enough to protect them from
head injuries.

"All through the time that I've been with him, he has suffered
headaches and dizziness and high blood pressure and all kinds of
things that are . . .  usually the result of multiple
concussions," Ms. Clark said from Los Angeles in a telephone
interview with The Associated Press.

"This physical beating that he took as a football player has
impacted his life, and therefore it has impacted his family life,"
Ms. Clark said.  "He is interested in making the game of football
safer and hoping that other families of retired players will have
a healthier and happier retirement."

Ms. Clark, who also played the wife of Mr. Karras' character on
"Webster," said he was formally diagnosed with dementia about
seven years ago, but symptoms first showed up more than a dozen
years ago.

Day-to-day life, Ms. Clark said, "would be very difficult for him
without help.  He doesn't drive a car anymore.  He used to love to
drive.  He was an amazing cook, Italian and Greek food.  He
doesn't cook anything at all anymore -- he can't remember what his
recipes were."

Mr. Karras and 69 other ex-players named in the April 12 suit are
among more than 1,000 former NFL players suing the league, lawyers
involved say.  The cases say not enough was done to inform players
about the dangers of concussions in the past, and not enough is
done to take care of them today.

The 10th overall pick in the first round of the 1958 NFL draft out
of Iowa, Mr. Karras played his entire career with the Lions before
retiring in 1970 at age 35.  He was a first-team All-Pro in 1960,
1961 and 1965, and he made the Pro Bowl four times.  He missed the
1963 season when he was suspended by NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle
in a gambling probe.

The complaint filed on April 12 states: "During his NFL career,
Mr. Karras sustained repetitive traumatic impacts to his head
and/or concussions on multiple occasions.  Currently, Mr. Karras
suffers from various neurological conditions and symptoms related
to the multiple head traumas."

One of the lawyers representing Mr. Karras and more than 500 other
former players in their cases against the NFL, Craig Mitnick,
said: "The NFL not only misled players, and not only was negligent
but, we believe, deliberately withheld information that could have
protected these former players, and . . . could have changed the
way their lives were lived."

Mr. Mitnick declined to make Mr. Karras available for an
interview.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined to comment on April 12. In the
past, the NFL has said it did not intentionally seek to mislead
players and has taken action to better protect players and to
advance the science of concussion management and treatment.

"Here's the thing: The bigger picture is what interests me and
Alex.  There are millions of people with dementia or Alzheimer's.
The football players are maybe the worst cases, because they have
had multiple concussions and brain stem injuries.  But this is a
public-health issue.  This is the beginning of a long, long
discussion," said Ms. Clark, who married Karras in 1980.  "The
football players and their spouses, all of us, are shaking it up a
bit, saying, 'Hey, you have to pay attention to this.'"


OMEGA FLEX: Settles Suit vs. Former Insurer for $4.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. settled for $4,700,000 a lawsuit it initiated
against its former insurer in 2007, according to the Company's
March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2007, the Company instituted a legal complaint against a former
insurer, seeking reimbursement of amounts paid in defense of a
class action litigation, as well as supplementary payments made in
connection with the class action.  In January 2011, an appellate
court found in the Company's favor, establishing the insurer's
legal obligation to reimburse the Company for the defense costs.

Subsequently, in March of 2012, the Company and the insurer
settled the litigation for $4,700,000, with receipt of the cash
occurring during that same month.

Based in Exton, Pennsylvania, Omega Flex Inc., previously known as
Tofle America Inc., makes flexible metal hoses primarily in North
America and Europe.  Its product lines include corrugated metal
hoses in a range of sizes and alloys, including three grades of
stainless steel, bronze, Inconel, and Hastelloy.  Omega also makes
a range of pressure-reinforcing braids for its hoses in metallic
and synthetic constructions.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Still Named Co-Conspirator in Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, First Southwest Company ("FSC"), an indirect
subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation, received subpoenas from
the SEC and the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in
connection with an investigation of possible antitrust and
securities law violations, including bid-rigging, in the
procurement of guaranteed investment contracts and other
investment products for the reinvestment of bond proceeds by
municipalities.  The investigation is industry-wide and includes
approximately 30 or more firms, including some of the largest U.S.
investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities.  All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed.  However, the plaintiffs in these
purported class actions have filed amended complaints against
other entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into
industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in 20
individual lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been brought by several
California public entities and two New York non-profit
corporations that do not seek to certify a class.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act.  The New York
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
the New York Donnelly Act.  The allegations against FSC are very
limited in scope.  FSC has filed answers in each of the twenty
lawsuits denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative
defenses.  FSC intends to defend itself vigorously in these
individual actions.  The relief sought is unspecified monetary
damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Dallas-based PlainsCapital Corporation --
http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan
B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank,
PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest.  It offers a diverse range of
financial services.


REX ENERGY: "Cardinale" Suit in Preliminary Stages of Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation disclosed in its March 15, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, that the class action lawsuit known
as the "Cardinale Case" is in the preliminary stages of discovery.

In October 2011, the Company was named as defendants in a proposed
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale Case").  The named
plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated.  The complaint in the Cardinale Case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that the Company engaged, presented a form of
proposed oil and gas lease and an order for payment to each person
in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease
form and order for payment and delivered the documents to
representatives of Western.  The Company rejected these leases and
never signed them.  The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the
rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as
well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.

The Company says the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages of
discovery and it intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
The Company is in the process of gathering data and executing its
defense and it is unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses.

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.  The Company is based in State College,
Pennsylvania.


SAKS INC: Faces New FLSA-Violation Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Saks Incorporated is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
Company's March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 28,
2012.

On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated et al, filed a complaint, with which the
Company was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and
collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
California Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime,
provide itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest
periods.  On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to
proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under the
California statutes on behalf of individuals who have been
employed by OFF 5TH as Selling and Service Managers, Merchandise
Team Managers, or Department Managers and similar titles.

On February 8, 2012, the same plaintiffs' counsel from the Till
case filed a complaint, with which the Company was served on March
2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging essentially the same FLSA claim and related
claims under New York state law (Tate - Small et al v. Saks
Incorporated et al).

The Company believes that its managers at OFF 5TH have been
properly classified as exempt under both federal and state law and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.  It is not possible
to predict whether the courts will permit these actions to proceed
collectively or as a class.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Overdraft Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
over overdraft fees, according to the Company's March 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The putative class action litigation filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Sovereign Bank, National Association, by Diane Lewis,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland has been
transferred to and consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(the "MDL Court") under the caption In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation.  The complaint alleges violations of law in
connection with the Bank's overdraft/transaction ordering and fees
practices.  The Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the
complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc., headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts, provides customers with a broad range of financial
products and services through its two primary subsidiaries,
Sovereign Bank and Santander Consumer USA.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Large Investors Support Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that two of
Sino-Forest Corp.'s one-time largest investors have signalled
approval for a court challenge of the company's plan to use
bankruptcy-protection proceedings to sell its assets.

According to court documents, the company's second-largest
shareholder, U.S.-based Davis Selected Advisers LP, has signed on
for the potential C$9.18-billion class-action lawsuit against the
company.

The documents also say U.S. hedge fund Paulson & Co., at one time
the company's single biggest shareholder, also supports an attempt
by lawyers for the plaintiffs in that potential class action to
quash Sino-Forest's bankruptcy protection and restructuring plans.

The embattled forestry company, once worth C$6-billion, saw its
shares collapse after it faced fraud allegations last year.  The
controversy has prompted investigations by the Ontario Securities
Commission and the RCMP, as well as the potential class-action
lawsuit.  The allegations against the company have not been
proved.

On March 30, Sino-Forest went to court to seek bankruptcy
protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA),
buying time to find bidders for its subsidiaries and forestry
assets.

Lawyers in the potential class action are trying to challenge this
plan.  They demand instead that the company be put into
receivership, and its board of directors replaced because of the
allegations the company faces.

They also want to lift the stay, or freeze on litigation, imposed
by the CCAA proceedings in order to move ahead with their lawsuit
against the company, its auditors and underwriters.

An affidavit filed by lawyer Daniel Bach --
daniel.bach@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP, one of the law firms
acting for the plaintiffs, said Davis had recently retained
Siskinds.  Davis, which manages a family of mutual funds and has
about C$35-billion, held 12.6 per cent of Sino-Forest's shares as
of April 2011.

According to the affidavit, the U.S. investment firm "completely
supports" the plaintiff lawyers' demands, including the quashing
of the bankruptcy protection process and the replacement of Sino-
Forest's board.

The documents also say that on April 10, 2012, Mr. Bach spoke to a
lawyer for New York-based Paulson & Co. Inc., a hedge fund run by
John Paulson, a prominent figure in the U.S. financial world.  The
fund was at one time Sino-Forest's largest shareholder, but sold
its stake after the allegations surfaced in June 2011.

Paulson & Co. also supports the class-action lawyers' demands, the
affidavit says.  Representatives from both U.S. firms could not be
reached for comment.

In Ontario Superior Court in Toronto on April 13, lawyers for the
plaintiffs raised their objections to the company's plan to seek
buyers for its subsidiaries and forestry holdings in order to pay
off the holders of C$1.8-billion in outstanding debt.

Plaintiffs lawyer Ken Rosenberg told the court his clients
objected to Sino-Forest's request to extend the CCAA's stay to
July 9, after the company's deadline for expressions of interest
from potential buyers.  Mr. Rosenberg called the proposal
"excessive and beyond all reason in the circumstances of this
case."

He also said his motion calling for the removal of the board of
directors was necessary because the OSC notices sent to Sino-
Forest and six former and current executives, disclosed last week,
create a "cloud of fraud allegations."

After hearing Mr. Rosenberg's arguments, Mr. Justice Geoffrey
Morawetz ruled that the company has until June 1 before it must
return to court to renew the stay.  He also scheduled a hearing
later this month to hear other arguments in the case.


SUCCESSFACTORS INC: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
SuccessFactors, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in
January 2012 to resolve shareholder class action lawsuits arising
from its acquisition by SAP AG, according to the Company's March
16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning December 2011, four putative shareholder class action
lawsuits relating to the Company's acquisition by SAP AG were
filed in state and federal court against the Company, the members
of the Company's Board, SAP America Inc. and a subsidiary of SAP.
Three lawsuits have been consolidated before the California
Superior Court, County of San Mateo, under the caption In re
SuccessFactors, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. CIV 510279.
The consolidated class action complaint seeks certification of a
class of the Company's stockholders and generally alleges, among
other things, that (i) the members of the Board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated
by the merger agreement; and (ii) SAP America and its subsidiary
aided and abetted the Board's purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction
prohibiting the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement,
rescission in the event such transactions are consummated,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  A fourth putative
shareholder class action was pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Israni v.
Dalgaard et al., Case No. 12-CV-0076-JSW.  The federal complaint
sought certification of a class of the Company's stockholders and
alleged substantially similar claims to those at issue in the
consolidated complaint filed in state court.

On January 12, 2012, the Company and the other parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") reflecting an agreement
to settle the state and federal actions.  The MOU provided that
the federal action would be voluntarily dismissed as to all
defendants, and that the consolidated state court action would be
dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.  Pursuant to the
terms of the MOU, the federal action was voluntarily dismissed on
January 18, 2012.

The Company expects to execute a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to approval by the court following notice to the
Company's stockholders.  In addition, the Company and the other
parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of
attorney's fees and expenses as part of the settlement, and that
plaintiffs will release defendants from any and all liability.

The Company has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
as it is defined by the Financial Accounting Standard Board's
Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 450, Contingencies;
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Decision in Suit vs. Comdata
-------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed against
it and Comdata Network, Inc., according to the Company's March 16,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.  On March 24, 2011, the Court
dismissed the claims against the Company in the amended complaint,
but granted plaintiffs leave to file a new amended complaint.
Four independent truck stop owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new
amended complaint against the Company on April 21, 2011,
repleading their claims.  On May 6, 2011, the Company renewed its
motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  Briefing on the
motion is complete and the parties await the Court's decision
while discovery otherwise proceeds.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it, but that the costs
to defend this case could be significant.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its customers
include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers, independent
truck drivers and motorists.  The Company offers a broad range of
products and services, including diesel fuel and gasoline, truck
repair and maintenance services, full service restaurants, more
than 20 different brands of quick serve restaurants, or QSRs,
travel and convenience stores and various driver amenities.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Defends Suits Over Fuel Temperature
-------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC continues to defend class action
lawsuits over motor fuel temperatures, according to the Company's
March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and the Company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refineries and retailers have been named as defendants
in one or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleges that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  The Company believes that there are
substantial factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in
these so called "hot fuel" lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek
nonmonetary relief in the form of an order requiring the
defendants to install devices that display the temperature of the
fuel and/or temperature correcting equipment on their retail fuel
pumps and monetary relief in the form of damages, but the
plaintiffs have not quantified the damages they seek.  The "tax"
cases also seek monetary relief.

Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the Company disputes) to
measure these damages as the difference between the amount of fuel
excise taxes paid by defendants and the amount collected by
defendants on motor fuel sales.  Plaintiffs have taken the
position in filings with the Court that under this approach, the
Company's damages for an eight-year period for one state would be
approximately $10,700,000.  The Company denies liability and
disagree with the plaintiffs' positions.  All of these cases have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas pursuant to multi-district litigation procedures.  On
May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel
temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel).

On January 19, 2012, the Court amended its prior ruling, and
certified a class with respect to plaintiffs' claims for damages
as well.  A TravelCenters of America LLC, or TA, entity was named
in one of the two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  As
a result, no class has been certified as to TA and TA has since
been dismissed from that Kansas case.  The U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas has not issued a decision on class
certification with respect to the remaining cases that have been
consolidated in the multi-district.

Because these various motions are pending, the Company says it
cannot estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if
any, related to these lawsuits.  However, the continued cost of
litigating these cases could be significant.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its customers
include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers, independent
truck drivers and motorists.  The Company offers a broad range of
products and services, including diesel fuel and gasoline, truck
repair and maintenance services, full service restaurants, more
than 20 different brands of quick serve restaurants, or QSRs,
travel and convenience stores and various driver amenities.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Seeks Dismissal From Calif. & Penn. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. has requested that plaintiffs voluntarily
dismiss it from two class action lawsuits pending in California
and Pennsylvania, according to the Company's March 16, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 19, 2011, and January 17, 2012, complaints were served
against Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation ("TGIC"), a wholly-
owned Company subsidiary, in the United States District Court,
Central District of California, and United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, respectively.  The plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of persons whose loans were insured
by a mortgage guaranty insurance policy and reinsured through a
captive reinsurer.  The complaints allege that such reinsurance is
in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  In
each case, the lender, captive reinsurer, and various mortgage
guaranty insurers were sued.  Triad did not provide mortgage
guaranty insurance on the named plaintiffs' loans in either
lawsuit and has requested that plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss
Triad in both lawsuits.

Triad says it intends to vigorously defend this matter.  The cases
have been stayed at the request of the plaintiff pending the
outcome of another case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Magistrate Judge in North Carolina recommended that Triad
Guaranty Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit initiated by James L. Phillips be granted, according to
the Company's March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2009, James L. Phillips served a complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws against TGI and two of its
officers in the United States District Court, Middle District of
North Carolina on behalf of a purported class of persons who
acquired the common stock of the Company between October 26, 2006,
and April 1, 2008.  TGI filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 21, 2009, and on
January 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that TGI's
motion to dismiss be granted.  The plaintiff has indicated his
intent to appeal the decision or move to amend the complaint.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 2009, Triad Guaranty Inc. filed a complaint
against American Home Mortgage ("AHM") in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking rescission
of multiple master mortgage guaranty insurance policies ("master
policies") and declaratory relief.  The complaint seeks relief
from AHM as well as all owners of loans insured under the master
policies by way of a defendant class action.  Triad alleged that
AHM failed to follow the delegated insurance underwriting
guidelines approved by Triad, that this failure breached the
master policies as well as the implied covenants of good faith and
fair dealing, and that these breaches were so substantial and
fundamental that the intent of the master policies could not be
fulfilled and Triad should be excused from its obligations under
the master policies.  Three groups of current owners and/or
servicers of AHM-originated loans filed motions to intervene in
the lawsuit, which were granted by the Court on May 10 and October
29, 2010.

On March 4, 2011, Triad amended its complaint to add a count
alleging fraud in the inducement.  On March 25, 2011, each of the
interveners filed a motion to dismiss.  Triad filed its answer and
answering brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss on May 27,
2011, and the interveners filed their reply briefs on July 13,
2011.  The total amount of risk originated under the AHM master
policies, accounting for any applicable stop-loss limits
associated with Modified Pool contracts and less risk originated
on policies that have been subsequently rescinded, was $1.4
billion, of which $0.7 billion remained in force at December 31,
2011.

Triad continues to accept premiums and process claims under the
master policies, with the earned premiums and settled losses
reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
(Loss).  However, as a result of the litigation, Triad ceased
remitting claim payments to companies servicing loans originated
by AHM and the liability for losses settled but not paid is
included in "Accrued expenses and other liabilities" on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Triad has not recognized any benefit
in its financial statements pending the outcome of the litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


U.S. SOCIAL SERVICES: Damages Award in Toxic Tort Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a March 15, 2012 order, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fourth Circuit, opined that the district court did not err in
awarding damages to plaintiffs in the toxic tort class action
captioned Sherry Watters, et al. v. Department of Social Services,
et al., No. 2011-CA-1174 (La. App. Ct).

The class is made up of Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH)
and Department of Social Services (DSS) employees, who suffered a
variety of health issues due to their exposure to mold and mold
by-products between 1996 and 2002.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 15, 2012 order is available
at http://is.gd/9blOT9from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers File for Settlement Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wright, writing for NewsOK, reports that hundreds of black
farmers and their families, many of whom have lost their farms and
livelihood, gathered at an Oklahoma City conference room on
April 13, waiting patiently for their names to be called.

They were there seeking legal advice and help filling out
paperwork that will determine whether they are eligible to receive
money from a $1.2 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

"I'm here to get what's due to me," Frank Smith, a former farmer
said.  "The USDA was not fair.  That's the way it was."

Mr. Smith's grandfather, a railroad worker, started a farm near
Spencer, the same one Mr. Smith lost when he attempted to get a
loan from the USDA to help take care of his hogs, cattle,
chickens, rabbits and other animals.

The Black Farmers Litigation Discrimination Settlement grew out of
Pigford v. Glickman, a 1997 class-action lawsuit against the USDA
claiming black farmers had been denied loans granted to white
farmers in equivalent situations.

"Many of these folks, between 1981 and 1996, attempted to receive
loans from the USDA, and were denied based upon their race," said
Greg Francis, co-lead counsel."  Many of these farmers lost their
land.  They lost their crops, their cattle . . . they lost the
opportunity to farm."

Mr. Francis is going around the country with a team of lawyers
offering advice to potential claimants, a tour entirely funded as
part of the settlement.  In addition to the event on April 13 in
Oklahoma City, they were in Hugo on April 12 and were set to hold
meetings on April 14 in Tulsa.

                     About the Settlement

The suit was settled in 1999 and set a record for a civil rights
settlement.

Following the settlement, more than 60,000 people turned in claims
for assistance after an Oct. 12, 1999 deadline passed, primarily
because they weren't notified properly, said Willard Tillman,
executive director of the Oklahoma Black Historical Research
Project.

After years of lobbying, Congress passed and the president signed
a measure included in the 2008 Farm Bill that let late applicants
pursue claims.  In 2010, $1.2 billion was designated to fund the
new settlement.

Mr. Tillman said this time attorneys and advocates are working
hard to make sure everyone who could qualify is given due notice.

Anyone who thinks they are owed a share of the settlement must
provide identifying information, the location of their farm,
details of how they were denied a loan and other facts,
Mr. Francis said.

Unlike the original Pigford settlement, there is no appeals
process, which means the applications must be completed as
accurately as possible on the first try.  Paperwork is due May 11.

                         Many Lost Farms

Nearly 200 people attended the event on April 13 at the Embassy
Suites Hotel.  Syvertic King, of Prague in Lincoln County, comes
from a long history of family farmers.  Mr. King's family grew
peanuts and cotton, and raised hogs, chickens and cattle.

In his adult years, Mr. King fell on hard times and eventually had
to stop farming.

"I want to farm, I want to ranch again . . . we just weren't given
the same opportunities to try and be successful."

E.T. Taylor recalled the hard work and reward he found in his farm
near Spencer.  When he applied for a USDA loan he was denied.  He
was forced to give the farm up.

Mr. Taylor said since he lost the farm he has struggled to make
enough money.

Mr. Tillman said some of the most challenging cases are from
children of deceased farmers who were denied loans.  As long as
they are able to produce the same detailed information as any
other land owner, they are entitled to awards if approved.

"I'm here because of my dad," Carolyn Winrow said.  "He passed
away waiting for all this to be resolved."

Booker Winrow owned a small farm near Earlsboro in Pottawatomie
County, mainly raising cattle and horses.  The farmland is still
in the family, but no one lives there anymore.

Lois Vaughn drove from El Reno to attend the April 13 event for
her dad, W.T., who died in 2006.  At one time he was raising 100
pigs, but when he applied for a loan to build a new fence, he was
denied.

"He needed a stronger fence so the stock wouldn't get out in the
night," Ms. Vaughn said.

Mr. Francis said people who submit applications have two possible
options: The first one limits their payment to as much as $50,000.
The second track could award up to $250,000, but it involves more
rigorous examinations of farm finances.

After the May 11 deadline, all applications will go to a group of
neutral reviewers who will decide who is eligible to receive a
monetary award.


UNITED STATES: Mid-May Oral Arguments Set for Cobell Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Mitchell, writing for StarTribune, reports that a class-
action settlement that could bring $45 million to American Indians
in Minnesota remains locked in a legal tug-of-war pitting four
people with tribal roots in North and South Dakota against
hundreds of thousands of Indian landowners longing to close the
ledger on an issue that has plagued their families for
generations.

The landmark Cobell vs. Salazar agreement, one of the largest and
longest class-action decisions ever approved against the U.S.
government, acknowledges that the U.S. Department of Interior
persistently and purposely mismanaged Indian trust funds dating
back to the late 1880s.

If a three-judge panel upholds the ruling in federal court, the
agreement will bring a windfall to tens of thousands of residents
in the Upper Midwest beyond Minnesota, with $55 million destined
for South Dakota, $54 million for North Dakota and $27 million for
Wisconsin, out of the total $3.4 billion awarded, according to
Geoffrey Rempel, an accounting consultant for the Cobell lawyers.

In a related class-action suit brought by 41 American Indian
tribes over mismanagement of tribal money and trust lands, the
federal government will pay more than $1 billion under a
settlement announced last week, with about $7 million of that
coming to Minnesota tribes.  The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa will
receive $1.443 million, while nearly $2 million will be split
among all seven of the Minnesota Chippewa tribes.  Officials with
the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa confirmed on April 12 that the
band will receive $3.5 million.

But that money goes to the tribal entities, while the Cobell money
would go to individual tribal members, who continue to wait.

Now a dispute over the government's role has sparked lawsuits that
threaten to further delay the federal payouts.  One of the central
complaints is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to use
more than half the settlement -- approximately $1.9 billion -- to
buy back much of the mismanaged land before offering to return it
to tribal control, at a cost.

Allowing the federal government to redistribute land on which they
admitted mismanaging oil, gas, grazing, timber and other royalties
doesn't sit well with Kimberly Craven, whose lawyers filed an
appeal heard in court last month.  Ms. Craven also is arguing that
the settlement shortchanges tribal members who owned land that
once was rich in resources but now has been stripped of its value.

"It's like they're dangling carrots in front of starving rabbits,"
said Ms. Craven, a registered member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton
Oyate tribe of South Dakota.  "People have no idea what they're
giving up."

Dennis Gingold, the lead litigator in the Cobell case, said that
landowners aren't required to sell the land but that the appeal
threatens to take away everything.

"If they win," Mr. Gingold said, ". . . [people] get nothing."

While the debate continues thousands of miles away, Gayle Harmon
of Fridley is among more than 20,000 Minnesota residents waiting
for the opportunity to file for her share of the settlement, more
than two years after Congress approved the deal.

For a combined acre of land on the Leech Lake Reservation in
northern Minnesota and the Lake Traverse Reservation in northeast
South Dakota, Ms. Harmon could reap a one-time payment of up to
$1,800.  It's a pittance, Ms. Harmon said, for an issue that
pained her parents and grandparents until their deaths.

"They went to their graves believing you just can't trust the
government," Ms. Harmon said.  "A lot of people from my generation
feel the same way."

As recently as 2005, plaintiffs in the Cobell case speculated that
the government's liability could top $100 billion.  At times,
during 13 years of negotiations, even the U.S. Department of the
Interior projected its tab would be double or more what the Cobell
lawyers eventually settled for in 2009.  The size of the
settlement has even perplexed legal scholars, who expected a
larger figure.

"It's a compromise in the broadest sense of the term," said
Matthew L.M. Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law & Policy
Center at the Michigan State University College of Law.  "It
relieves the government of a big headache they've had for a long
time."

Another round of oral arguments is scheduled for mid-May in D.C.'s
federal appeals court, with two claimants from South Dakota and
another from North Dakota joining Ms. Craven in arguing that the
settlement is unfair.

The Cobell agreement would benefit up to a half-million tribe
members across the country, including almost every recognized
tribe west of the Mississippi River.  Most of the Minnesota
payments will be meager compared with payouts in states such as
oil- and natural gas-rich Oklahoma and timber-heavy regions of the
Pacific northwest, Mr. Gingold said.

The government would pay most class-action members between $1,000
and $2,000, with some landowners receiving more to make amends for
the mismanaged royalties.


VANCOUVER POLICE: Revises Strip Search Policy After Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKNW reports that the same month two protesters -- who claim they
were illegally strip-searched by Vancouver Police -- are taking
steps to have their lawsuit classified as class action, the VPD is
updating its current strip search policy.

Elise Thorburn and Christopher Jacob were strip-searched after
they were arrested at a 2003 rally against the war in Iraq . . .
that was two years after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled routine
strip searches may violate basic human rights.

A 15-page report going to the Vancouver Police Board on April 11
outlines amendments clearly defining when -- and if -- a strip
search can be done.

Officers will no longer be allowed to demand the removal of all
clothing, but they will still be able to inspect inside a
prisoner's underwear.

Stronger restrictions will also be imposed on body cavity searches
and language has been changed replacing the term "transsexual"
with "transgender."


VICTORIAVILLE GAS STATIONS: Fined for Gas Price-Fixing Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Moore, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that another
round of culprits in Quebec's gas price-fixing conspiracy have
pleaded guilty and been fined.

Five people were sentenced to fines totalling C$30,000, and one
company was fined C$124,000, the Competition Bureau said on
April 13.

All were in the Victoriaville area.

The convicted conspirators so far are generally "the small fish"
in the retail gas business, George Iny, president of the
Automobile Protection Association, said.

Mr. Iny is one of the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against
an alleged gas cartel.

The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the suit to cover more
geographical territory in Quebec, including Quebec City, Mr. Iny
said on April 13.

The approved lawsuit covers Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog
and Sherbrooke and is against an alleged gas cartel formed of 12
oil companies and 19 individuals.

The APA estimated that 50,000 Quebecers could benefit from that
class action.

Charges were laid in June 2008 and July 2010 against 38
individuals and 14 companies for fixing the price of gas at pumps
in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke.

As of April 13, 27 people and seven companies had pleaded guilty
in the case and their fines totalled more than C$3 million, the
bureau said.

Six people have also been sentenced to terms of house arrest that
total 54 months.

The Societe Cooperative Agricole des Bois-Francs, owner of the
Sonic banner gas station in Victoriaville, was fined $124,000.

Former owners or managers of Victoriaville-area stations operating
under the Sonerco banner, the Petro-T banner, the Sonic banner,
the Esso banner and the Shell banner were personally fined a total
of C$30,000.


VITACOST.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitacost.com, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit filed in Florida remains pending, according to the
Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO").  On
December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters.  Lead
plaintiff purports to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results.  The complaint also alleges that as a result of these
actions, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated
during the class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

On February 24, 2012, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  Lead plaintiff's opposition was due on
March 16, 2012, and defendants' reply was due on April 6, 2012.

The Company records provisions in its consolidated financial
statements for pending litigation when it determines that an
unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has meritorious defenses
to the complaint pending against it and will vigorously defend
against it.  It is possible that the Company's consolidated
balance sheets, statements of operations, or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.


W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Defends Against Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Crown rested its defense against class action certification
for former students of W. Ross Macdonald who allege that they
endured physical, sexual and mental abuse while attending the
school.  The Crown used an almost identical defense against the
Huronia, Southwestern and Rideau Regional Centre class action
certifications approved last year.  Former residents of these
former Ontario-run institutions for the developmentally disabled
allege similar abuse.

"By using the same unsuccessful arguments for W. Ross Macdonald as
it did for the Regional Centre class actions, the Crown is
blatantly showing that it has no regard for the court's time and
taxpayers who are footing the bill for these expensive
proceedings," said Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, who represents
the plaintiffs for both W. Ross Macdonald and the former Regional
Centres.

Many of the same arguments the Crown used for W. Ross Macdonald, a
Brantford-area school for the blind and visually impaired, were
unsuccessful during Huronia, Rideau and Southwestern class action
certifications.  These include, stating that claims prior to 1963
were ineligible in any class action, the Aboriginal Residential
Schools class action is not similar or comparable and that all
pleadings of abuse on the basis of alleged funding inadequacies
should not be included.

"I don't understand how the Crown can see fit to continue to
defend itself using the same litany of arguments for people who
were abused in Ontario-run institutions and actually believe there
will be a different outcome," says Mr. Baert.  "The Crown needs to
do the right thing and let us proceed with the W. Ross Macdonald
class action without further delay, so these people can see
justice in their lifetime.

The W. Ross Macdonald School opened in 1872 as the Ontario
Institution for the Education of the Blind.  It is one of two
Ontario-run residential schools in Ontario for blind, deafblind
and visually impaired students.

The Huronia, Rideau and Southwestern Regional Centres were
provincial institutions for the developmentally disabled.  Their
class actions have been approved by the Ontario court and are now
in progress.

Contact: Kirk Baert, Esq.
         Koskie Minsky LLP
         Telephone: (416) 595-2117
         E-mail: kbaert@kmlaw.ca
         Web site: http://www.institutionalsurvivors.com


WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defends Piedmont REIT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC, continues to defend a
class action lawsuit filed by a stockholder of Piedmont REIT,
according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Wells Management Company, Inc. ("Wells Management") is the
sponsoring member of Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC
("Wells VAF I" or the "Company") and has the exclusive authority
to conduct the day-to-day and overall direction and supervision of
the business and affairs of the Company pursuant to an operating
agreement.  Wells Management has contributed $1,000,000 to Wells
VAF I for a subordinated interest therein.  Wells Investment
Management Company, LLC ("WIM"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Wells Management, has been appointed by Wells Management to serve
as the Company's manager.  The Company has also engaged WIM, Wells
Real Estate Services, LLC ("WRES"), and Wells Management to
provide certain essential services, including asset management
services, supervision of the management of properties, asset
acquisition and disposition services, as well as other
administrative responsibilities, including accounting services,
investor member communications, and investor relations.  As a
result of these relationships, the Company is dependent upon WIM,
WRES, and Wells Management.

WIM, WRES, and Wells Management are owned and controlled by Wells
Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("WREF").

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III; Wells
Capital Inc.; Wells Management, the Company's sponsoring member;
certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.  Since the
filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it
intends to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million
plus prejudgment interest.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.

On November 17, 2011, the court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.  On February 23, 2012, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for
reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking
exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions
seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by
the plaintiff.  The lawsuit has been removed from the Court's
trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory
appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  Although WREF believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and
damages in these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict
the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate a range of
damages, or how any liability and responsibility for damages might
be allocated among the 17 defendants in the action, which includes
11 defendants not affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or
Wells Management.  The ultimate resolution of these matters could
have a material adverse impact on WREF's financial results,
financial condition, or liquidity.


WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: "Hodges" Class Suit Dismissed in December
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settled class action lawsuit against Westinghouse Solar, Inc.
was dismissed in December 2011, according to the Company's
March 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California entered an order (the "Class
Action Order") granting final approval to the settlement of the
class action complaint filed against the Company and certain of
its officers on May 18, 2009, captioned Hodges v. Akeena Solar,
Inc., et al., Case No. C-09-02147.  Pursuant to the settlement and
Class Action Order, the class action lawsuit was dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice and on the merits, resulting in a release
of all claims and a cash payment made exclusively from the
proceeds of the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance.


YONGYE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Yongye
International, Inc. was voluntarily dismissed in March 2012,
according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 26, 2011, and June 3, 2011, the Company and three of its
officers and directors were named in putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging, among other things, that the
Company and such officers and directors issued false and
misleading information to investors about the Company's financial
and business condition.  These securities class action complaints
generally allege that Yongye's business was not growing at the
rate represented by the defendants and that Yongye's financial
results as reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission were
inconsistent with its production capabilities.  On
December 12, 2011, the securities class actions were consolidated
and a consolidated class action complaint was filed alleging the
Company and its officers and directors issued false and misleading
information to investors about its financial and business
conditions.

On March 5, 2012, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action
with prejudice as to themselves as named plaintiffs.


* 100 Federal Class Actions Filed Last Year, PwC Study Reveals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bagley, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that
computing, electronics and health-related industries overtook
financial services as the leading targets of securities class
action lawsuits last year, according to a study by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

The accounting firm counted 23 federal class actions against
computing, telecommunications and other high-tech firms, and 14
against companies in the pharmaceutical and other health
industries, compared to just 12 against financial-services firms.

The financial sector was investors' main target in 2008, 2009 and
2010 in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

All in all, plaintiffs filed 100 federal class-action lawsuits
last year, compared to 97 the previous year.

Pension funds and other institutional investors were the most
frequent plaintiffs last year, according to the report, which was
published earlier last week.

PWC said settlements in the lawsuits were larger but fewer than in
years past.  Sixty-seven cases settled for a total of $3.43
billion, or an average of $51.2 million.

Shareholder lawsuits often end in a settlement that affects the
terms of the merger or acquisition, Raleigh attorney Press Millen
said.  Several securities attorneys said clients have come to view
such lawsuits as a cost of doing business.


* CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settles Safe City Strike Force Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Schwartz, writing for KRQE, reports that the city of
Albuquerque will shell out almost $2 million for moving too fast
to boot purported troublemakers from their homes.

The city settled a lawsuit on April 12 after a judge ruled the
Safe City Strike Force was trampling on people's rights.

For years, the strike force would seek out problem homes, red tag
them as uninhabitable and kick out the people living there.

Mayor Martin Chavez introduced the new name and program back in
2003.

The Safe City Strike Force allowed code enforcement officers to
red tag buildings and sometimes evict problem people from their
homes.

Strike force officers first started evicting people who were
cooking methamphetamine in homes.

Then they booted people out of their homes who had illicit drugs,
according to attorney Joseph Kennedy, the lawyer who sued the city
in a class-action lawsuit in 2009.

He represented landlords and tenants who have been targeted by the
strike force.

"It was good idea gone bad," Mr. Kennedy said.

In 2010, a judge ruled that having drugs in a house may be grounds
for an arrest but not for eviction.

"It's not 'give us civil rights or give us safe neighborhoods,'"
Mr. Kennedy said.  "We can have both."

On April 12, the city settled the lawsuit for $1.7 million.

Mayor Richard J. Berry's office blamed the Chavez administration
for starting this mess and said if his administration had gone to
trial they would have been rolling the dice.

"It's not in the best interest of the taxpayers because we could
have gotten dinged for $5-$6-$7 million," city Chief Executive
Officer Rob Perry said.

The lawsuit changes the way the city does business.

They no longer can kick people out of their homes just for drugs
or drug paraphernalia.

The city can only evict someone if there is an immediate danger
such as faulty wiring, extreme filth or in cases of hoarding.

One hundred fifty people were part of the class action lawsuit and
will split the money minus legal fees.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *