---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 24, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 80

                             Headlines

AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Still Defends California Class Suit
APPLE: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Employee Class Action
BURGER KING: Inks Deal to Settle 86-Restaurants' Class Suit
CENTRO: PwC Lawyers' Dispute May Derail Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Illegal Red Light Camera Program & Fines

CITIBANK: Court Okayed Disbursement of Settlement Fund in Oct.
CITIBANK: Motions to Dismiss Suit Over Interchange Fees Pending
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Bid to File Amended Securities Suit Pending
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: No Approval Out on Merger Suit Settlement
DELTA PETROLEUM: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Shareholders Dismiss Class Action
FINISAR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Consolidated Class Suit
FINISAR CORP: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Dismissed in Jan.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Homeowners Seek Hydrogen Sulfide Class Action
HECKMANN CORP: Ordered to Produce Docs in Securities Class Suit

IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Approval of Unitholders' Suit Deal
IOWA: NAACP Says Cost Reason for Bias Suit Dismissal
IRWIN INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 55,260 10-Inch Circular Saw Blades
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Insurer Suit in Illinois
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Potash Antitrust Litigation

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Stills Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Dog Treats
OCEAN RIG: Lawsuit Over OceanFreight Merger Now Closed
OILSANDS QUEST: Securities Suit Stayed Due to Ch. 15 Proceedings
OMEGA FLEX: Settles Suit vs. Former Insurer for $4.7 Million

ONE WORLD: Recalls 89T STOK Gas Grills Due to Fire & Burn Risks
POSTROCK ENERGY: Paid $3MM in Jan. Under Kansas Suit Settlement
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Court Grants Class Cert. in "Hellum" Suit
ROSETTA STONE: Still Awaits Court OK of Wage Suit Settlement
SAKAR INT'L: Recalls 48,000 Travel Chargers Due to Shock Hazard

SHELL: 7th Cir. Says Printing Credit Card Receipts Within Law
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product-Related Suits
TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC: Challenges Summary Judgment Bid
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Rights of Way Lawsuit Still Pending
UTI WORLDWIDE: Antitrust Class Suit in New York Still Pending

UXC LIMITED: Disputes Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
XS SCUBA: Recalls 17,000 Miflex High Pressure Diving Hoses


                          *********

AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Still Defends California Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, LLC and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006, through October 21, 2010, filed an
action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu
thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code.  The relief sought includes damages,
restitution, penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and
such other relief as the court deems proper.  The Company says it
has not included any liability in its Consolidated Financial
Statements in connection with this matter.  The Company asserts
that it cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss, if any, at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 8, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


APPLE: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Employee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that seven tech giants will need to face
the music in a pending class action lawsuit, following a call by
one U.S. judge on April 18.

According to reports, Apple, Google, Intel, Oracle, Intuit,
Disney's Pixar, and Adobe Systems will face a class action suit
filed by five engineers in the State of California, claiming the
companies conspired to depress employee pay by eliminating
competition for skilled labor.

Though the companies tried to get the case dismissed, U.S District
Judge Lucy Koh of California said the case will go forward,
rejecting a bid by the septet.

It's not clear what the terms of the class action were at the time
of filing.

The case is In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-02509.


BURGER KING: Inks Deal to Settle 86-Restaurants' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc. negotiated a settlement in January to
resolve a class action alleging violations of accessibility
requirements by its franchisees with respect to 86 of the
Company's restaurants, according to the Company's March 14, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit captioned Castenada
v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation., No. CV08-4262,
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The complaint alleged that all
96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the Company and
operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under
federal and state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a
decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In
its decision, the court limited the class action to the 10
restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class
of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate
trials.  In March 2010, the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit
with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010, the court
gave final approval to the settlement.  In February 2011, a class
action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation,
No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California) was filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants. In
January 2012, BKC agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The parties are
finalizing the terms of the proposed settlement which will be
submitted to the court for approval.

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


CENTRO: PwC Lawyers' Dispute May Derail Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that hugely expensive Centro
class action veered dangerously close to derailment on April 17
when lawyers for the property group's former auditors repeatedly
asked a Federal Court judge to back down from threats that she
would levy costs against them personally.

In extraordinary scenes during the morning session, PwC's lawyers
from King & Wood Mallesons, led by two senior counsel, told
Justice Michelle Gordon that her comments on April 16 and on April
5 put them "in a very difficult position".

Justice Gordon declined to withdraw her threats, triggering a
tense 90 minute-adjournment as PwC's lawyers met outside the court
to consider if they could continue.

The PwC legal team then returned and twice more asked the judge to
withdraw her comments, arguing the threat of legal costs left
PwC's lawyers facing a potential conflict of interest with their
client, which if left unchecked could "interfere with the proper
conduct of the defense case".

Justice Gordon then said she would "consider the matter".

The startling dispute follows comments by the judge on April 5 and
again on April 17 when she sharply warned PwC's lawyers, through
counsel Richard McHugh, SC, that if any of the nine legal teams in
the Centro case persisted with arguments which the court later
found had no basis they could end up contributing the legal costs
personally.

Justice Gordon has repeatedly urged parties in the case to avoid
delays and cut frivolous arguments, but sparks flew on April 17
when she demanded Mr. McHugh clarify who PwC claims was "the
auditor" of Centro's accounts -- PwC as a firm or one of its
partners, Stephen Cougle.

A flushed and at times testy Mr. Cougle was cross-examined
on April 17 on what he remembered about the audit work done in
2007, when Centro generated accounts that failed to disclose the
group had billions of dollars of short-term debt.

Mr. Cougle told the court he recalled being told in August 2007
that one of Centro's debt facilities, a $1.1 billion bridging loan
from JPMorgan, due to be repaid in late 2007, had been wrongly
classed as long-term in the preliminary accounts released earlier
that month.

Centro did not publicly reveal the error until December, when it
also revealed it was having difficulties refinancing several
billions of dollars of debt.  The share price promptly sank 70 per
cent, and now shareholders are suing the company and the auditors
for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Cougle said he signalled the error on August 28 to Centro's
head of accounting, Paul Belcher, and Mr. Belcher "responded quite
quickly and said that he agreed and would make the adjustment".

Mr. Cougle said he then pondered whether Centro should disclose
the error publicly and, after locating the rules on disclosure,
showed them to Mr. Belcher "and said the company should consider
its continuous disclosure obligations".

"He [Mr Belcher] said they would consider it and speak to Romano
[Nenna, Centro's then chief financial officer]," Mr. Cougle told
the court.

Mr. Cougle also insisted that the classification error was raised
by Mr. Belcher when Centro's board audit committee met on
September 5 -- a position contradicted by other witnesses,
including Mr. Belcher and Centro directors.

Mr. Cougle said Mr. Belcher made "a reference" at the meeting to
the changes that had to be made "[and] I was satisfied that it had
been raised".


CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over Illegal Red Light Camera Program & Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terie L. Kata and Maureen Sullivan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. City of Chicago, an Illinois
Municipal Corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-14186 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., April 18, 2012) alleges that the City, under an ordinance
authorizing the use of "Red Light Cameras," has generated
significant revenue by photographing motor vehicles caught turning
at or proceeding through intersections against red signals and
then issuing violation notices, by mail, to the vehicles' owner
and demanding payment of municipal fines.

The Illinois Vehicle Code required a uniform system for the
enforcement of the rules of the road, including red light
violations, which required and allowed only for citation of the
driver by a police officer and prosecution in the Circuit Court,
and reporting of violations to the Illinois Secretary of State,
the Plaintiffs explain.  Because of this, the Plaintiffs argue,
the City lacked any home rule power or other legal authority to
treat moving violations as municipal ordinance violations, to
adopt alternative methods of enforcing routine red light
violations, to process and adjudicate violation notices and assess
and collect fines and penalties, through either the City's
administrative hearing or other revenue collection systems.  The
Plaintiffs argue that Chicago's Red Light Camera Program should be
declared void and illegal, and the illegally collected penalties
or fines be returned to the vehicle owners and motorists from whom
they improperly were taken.

"Chicago has consistently claimed that it had home rule authority
to enact its 2003 ordinance establishing a novel 'Automated Red
Light Camera Program,'" the suit states.  "However, home rule
authority in Illinois has never extended to the power of any
municipality, even Chicago, to adopt alternative enforcement
mechanisms for traffic violations involving vehicle movement or
similar offenses."

While city officials maintain the state Legislature approved a
2006 red light camera enabling statute -- it doesn't suddenly make
the program legal, the plaintiffs say in their suit.

"[E]ven if the enabling law is valid and does now allow
municipalities like Chicago to adopt red light camera ordinances
as defined, that law cannot be used to breathe life into Chicago's
void 2003 ordinance or validate Chicago's Red Light Camera
Program, which was unauthorized by law at its inception and has
remained so at all time up to this date," the suit states, which
leaves a question about why the city didn't re-enact the red-light
camera ordinance once the state legislature gave it the green
light.

More than 500,000 red violation notices are issued annually, the
suit states, with the fine going from $90 to $100.

Red-light camera tickets generated $48 million in 2009, though it
costs the city $18.1 million annually to operate and maintain the
system.

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to declare the program illegal
and void and therefore to return millions of dollars in fines back
to motorists snagged by the red light cameras.

"These fines were collected without legal authority and, under
principles of equity, the city has no right to retain them in good
conscience."

Ms. Kata and Ms. Sullivan are residents of Chicago, Illinois.
They regularly drive the vehicles they own in Chicago.

The City of Chicago is a Municipal Corporation existing under the
auspices of the Illinois Constitution and Illinois law, and
located within Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Patrick J. Keating, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2221
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 759-7518
          Facsimile: (312) 759-7516
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  pkeating@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jayne Conroy, Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 784-6420
          E-mail: jconroy@hanlyconroy.com
                  abierstein@hanlyconroy.com


CITIBANK: Court Okayed Disbursement of Settlement Fund in Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved in October 2011 the disbursement of settlement funds to
the class attorneys and claimants in the consolidated class action
lawsuit over currency conversion fees, according to Citibank
Credit Card Issuance Trust's March 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Citibank (South Dakota), National Association, certain of its
affiliates, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service
Association, MasterCard International Incorporated and other banks
were defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit (IN RE
CURRENCY CONVERSION FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The action,
originally brought on behalf of certain United States holders of
VISA, MasterCard and Diners Club branded general purpose credit
cards who used those cards since March 1, 1997, for foreign
currency transactions, asserted, among other things, claims for
alleged violations of (i) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, (ii) the
Federal Truth-in-Lending Act, and (iii) as to Citibank (South
Dakota), the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  In July
2006, without admitting any liability, all defendants, including
the Citigroup defendants, agreed to settle for a total of $336
million, subject to court approval.  The Citigroup defendants'
share of the settlement, which was paid into an escrow account,
was covered by existing reserves.  On October 22, 2009, the
District Court granted final approval of the settlement.  All
remaining appeals have been dismissed and the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement have become final.

On October 5, 2011, the District Court entered an order approving
disbursement of the settlement fund to the class attorneys and
claimants, and approving the plan for allocation among claimants.


CITIBANK: Motions to Dismiss Suit Over Interchange Fees Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit
over interchange fees remain pending, according to Citibank Credit
Card Issuance Trust's March 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, together
with Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association,
MasterCard International Incorporated, MasterCard Incorporated and
other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district
courts.  These actions were consolidated with other related cases
in the Eastern District of New York and captioned IN RE PAYMENT
CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action are merchants that
accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards as well as
membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of
merchants.  The pending complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price
of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
complaint also alleges additional Sherman Act and California law
violations, including alleged unlawful maintenance of monopoly
power and alleged unlawful contracts in restraint of trade
pertaining to various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant
conduct (including rules allegedly affecting merchants' ability,
at the point of sale, to surcharge payment card transactions or
steer customers to particular payment cards).  In addition,
supplemental complaints filed against the defendants in the class
action allege that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial
public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering
constituted a fraudulent conveyance.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief as well as joint and several liability for
treble their damages, including all interchange fees paid to all
Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and MasterCard
transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1, 2004.  The
defendants dispute that the manner in which interchange and
merchant discount fees are set, or the rules governing merchant
conduct, are anticompetitive.  Fact and expert discovery has
closed.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class action
complaint and the supplemental complaints are pending.  Also
pending are the plaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes
consisting of all U.S. merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-
branded payment cards and motions by both the plaintiffs and the
defendants for summary judgment.  The parties have been engaged in
mediation for several years, including recent settlement
conferences held at the direction of the court.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Bid to File Amended Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Maryland federal court has not yet entered a ruling on
plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended class action complaint
against Constellation Energy Group, Inc., according to the
Company's February 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.  The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures of Constellation Energy
between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired
Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008.  The securities
class actions generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number
of its present or former officers or directors, and the
underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection
with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures.
The securities class actions also allege that Constellation Energy
issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material
undisclosed information which contradicted public statements
including in connection with its announcements of financial
results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of
2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first
quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class actions seek, among
other things, certification of the cases as class actions,
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the suit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.  In
August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders.  Constellation Energy has
filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to
file a third amended complaint.

Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims, the Company is unable at this time to
provide an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to
these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the
securities class actions or their possible effect on the
Company's, or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's financial
results.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest annual
report filing with the Court.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Md., Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
is an energy company that conducts its business through various
subsidiaries and joint ventures organized around three business
segments: a generation business, a customer supply business, and
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE).


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: No Approval Out on Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
No court order has been entered with respect to a settlement
Constellation Energy Group, Inc., negotiated to resolve
shareholder class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger
with Exelon Corporation, according to the Company's February 29,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after Constellation
Energy and Exelon Corporation announced their agreement to merge
the two companies, twelve shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland.  Each
class action suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the
shareholders of Constellation Energy against Constellation Energy,
members of Constellation Energy's board of directors, and Exelon.
The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the
shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose
adequately all material information relating to the proposed
merger.  The class actions also allege that Constellation Energy
and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits challenge the proposed
merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger
until all material information is provided relating to the
proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and
any related transactions that have been completed as of the date
that the court grants any relief.  The class action lawsuits also
seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs
and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and rescission damages.  Plaintiffs in three of the
12 lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the
lawsuits.  The court has granted the motion to consolidate.

In August 2011, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
class actions generally assert that Constellation Energy's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Constellation
Energy's shareholders in connection with the pending merger and
that Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy, and
Exelon aided and abetted the alleged breaches and that
Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy and/or
Exelon violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on June 27,
2011.  The class actions seek various forms of relief, including,
among other things, a declaratory judgment, an injunction
prohibiting the merger, fees, expenses, and other costs.

In the third quarter of 2011, the parties to the consolidated
action in the state court and the two actions in the federal court
entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an
agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the actions.
Under the agreement, Constellation Energy and Exelon agreed to
provide certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The agreement
provides that the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and
that the members of the class of Constellation Energy shareholders
will release the defendants from all claims that were or could
have been raised in the actions, including all claims relating to
the merger. The agreement also provides that the plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the state court for an award of attorney's
fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including, among other things, the execution of
definitive settlement papers and approval of the settlement by the
state court.

Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors believe
the actions are without merit and that they have valid defenses to
all claims asserted therein. They entered into the memorandum of
understanding solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in further litigation. If the state court
does not approve the settlement or any of the other conditions to
consummation of the settlement are not satisfied,
Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors will
continue to defend their positions in these matters vigorously.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Md., Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
is an energy company that conducts its business through various
subsidiaries and joint ventures organized around three business
segments: a generation business, a customer supply business, and
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE).


DELTA PETROLEUM: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 18 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of
Delta Petroleum, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
between November 9, 2010 and November 9, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 18, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/delta/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges certain of Delta's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Delta is
not named as a defendant in the action due to its filing for
bankruptcy protection on December 16, 2011.  Delta is an
independent oil and gas company engaged primarily in the
exploration for, and the acquisition, development, production, and
sale of, natural gas and crude oil.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Delta stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.70
per share on February 28, 2011.

On November 9, 2011, Delta announced is third quarter 2011
financial results.  The Company reported a net loss of ($429.4)
million, or ($15.40) diluted earnings per share, for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.  The significant loss was due mostly to
costs associated with drilling dry holes.  The Company
additionally provided an update on its strategic alternatives
process, advising that the Company had not received any offers to
purchase the Company or its assets, and as a result, Delta would
be forced to restructure its indebtedness.  Delta further warned
investors that should it be unsuccessful in achieving a
transaction or transactions addressing the Company's liquidity, it
would be forced to seek protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.  On this news, Delta stock collapsed $1.34 per
share to close at $0.71 per share on November 10, 2011, a one-day
decline of 65% on volume of nearly 4.5 million shares.

On December 16, 2011, Delta announced that it, along with its
affiliates, had filed a voluntary petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not adequately
reserving for its dry hole costs and impairments in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial
results to be materially misstated; (b) Delta's unproductive
assets would hinder its ability to find a buyer for itself or its
assets as the value of the Company's assets was less than the
value of its aggregate debt; and (c) the Company had far greater
exposure to liquidity concerns than it had previously disclosed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Delta publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Shareholders Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Murphy, writing for Citybizlist, reports that shareholders
led by Douglas N. Gaer have withdrawn their appeal of a decision
by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania to dismiss their case against Education Management
Corp. with prejudice, according to an SEC filing.

The plaintiffs' withdrawal of the securities class action lawsuit
effectively ends a two-year battle since the Pittsburgh-based
company's initial public offering.  Mr. Gaer and others alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  Specifically, the suit
accused the company of failing to inform investors of its
recruiting practices that allegedly violated federal laws

Separately, the company faced a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of
Justice and other states accusing it of illegal compensation
practices.

Education Management is one of the largest providers of post-
secondary education in North America.  It had about 151,200
students as of last year.  It provides its services at 106
locations in 32 U.S. states and Canada.


FINISAR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in January 2012, in the
class action lawsuit over Finisar Corporation's March 8, 2011
earnings announcement, according to the Company's March 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 29, 2012.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010, through March
8, 2011.  The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The
cases have been consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been
appointed.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed January 20,
2012.


FINISAR CORP: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Dismissed in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit over Finisar Corporation's initial
public offering was dismissed in January 2012, according to the
Company's March 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 2012.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from November 17, 1999, through
December 6, 2000.  The complaint named as defendants the Company,
Jerry S. Rawls, its Chairman of the Board and formerly its
President and Chief Executive Officer, Frank H. Levinson, its
former Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical Officer, Stephen
K. Workman, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, and an investment banking firm that served as an
underwriter for the Company's initial public offering in November
1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000.  The complaint, as
subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the
offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the
underwriter had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the
underwriter allocated to those investors material portions of the
shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and (ii) the
underwriter had entered into agreements with customers whereby the
underwriter agreed to allocate shares of the Company's stock sold
in the offerings to those customers in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
stock in the after market at pre-determined prices. No specific
damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated for pretrial
purposes.  In October 2002, all claims against the individual
defendants were dismissed without prejudice.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding
the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal
documentation and Court approval.  Under the settlement, the
underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the
issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100
million to settle all of the cases.  On August 25, 2009, the
Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata
share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain
costs.  This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2010.  On
October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and
on November 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment.  The
judgment was appealed by certain individual class members and this
appeal was dismissed on January 9, 2012.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Homeowners Seek Hydrogen Sulfide Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
DeAnn Komanecky, writing for SavannahNow.com, reports that
attorneys representing four plaintiffs in a lawsuit against
Georgia-Pacific are asking that the case become a class-action
suit.

The suit, originally filed in 2010 by Kirbi and Aaron Ratner and
David and Kathy McDonald, all homeowners who live near the Fort
Howard Road plant, alleges that hydrogen sulfide coming from the
plant's waste treatment area has caused loss of property values
and physical damage to homes.

John C. Bell, an Augusta attorney representing the plaintiffs,
told Chief Judge William E. Woodrum Jr. at a hearing on the issue
on April 16 in Effingham County Superior Court, that the case
against Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant meets all the
Georgia requirements for class-action certification.

Georgia law requirements include that the class have enough
members that would make joining individual cases impractical and
that the claims, questions of fact and law be common among the
plaintiffs.

Mr. Bell told Judge Woodrum the number of proposed plaintiffs
living in the geographic area near the mill that they've chosen
for this case, including the original filers, would be 132.

Property owners in the area proposed by the plaintiffs includes an
area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the railroad line and east
of Rincon-Stillwell Road.

The lawsuit alleges that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the
plant releases hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg smells and
is corrosive to metal.

"One thousand tons per day that is half water and half waste is
dumped," Mr. Bell said.

Mr. Bell said the gas eats up copper and aluminum and has caused
20 to 30 people to have their air conditioning systems go out from
the corrosive gas.

Georgia Pacific has paid some for new air conditioning systems, he
said.

Most of the homeowners who had their air conditioning system
replacement paid for by Georgia-Pacific are located in Mallard
Pointe subdivision, according to court documents.

People living nearby have also reported corrosion on everything
from door knobs to plumbing, Ben Perkins --
bperkins@olivermaner.com -- an attorney for the plaintiffs said.
The plaintiffs are also represented by Tim Roberts --
troberts@olivermaner.com

Both Messrs. Roberts and Perkins are with the Oliver Maner law
firm in Savannah.

"The markers of hydrogen sulfide include a noxious odor and
corrosion of metal, including leaks and premature failure of air
conditioning units," Mr. Perkins said.

David McDonald, who has lived on Mallard Pointe Drive since 2005,
said the gas has even corroded the nails in his deck.  . . .

GP officials say they are well aware of odor issues and they have
been working on odor abatement as well as keeping the community
informed.

"We are committed to being good neighbors," GP spokesman Carrie
Thompson said.  "We continue to move forward with our short- and
long-term landfill abatement strategies and have spent significant
time and resources on the odor."

Mr. Thompson said GP is working toward closing three cells that
are most responsible for the odor issues with completion expected
by the end of the year.  The cells will be capped and have a gas
collection system.

GP's waste disposal area is on about 170 acres.  The site
currently has one closed sludge cell, two active sludge cells and
the three cells that are in the process of being closed,
Mr. Thompson said.  The waste comes from the remnants of GP's
manufacturing process that chiefly uses recycled paper and
cardboard.

Mr. Thompson said GP has also worked with neighbors and the
community, including covering the cost of repairing or replacing
some air conditioning systems.

"There are certain types of metal in air conditioning systems that
have the potential of reacting with hydrogen sulfide,"
Mr. Thompson said.  "We have worked with residents as part of our
overall plans when it was reasonable to be thought hydrogen
sulfide was the cause (of air conditioning damage)."

Attorneys for GP, J. Kevin Buster of Atlanta and R. Clay Ratterree
of Savannah, dispute the plaintiffs' claims that the case meets
class-certification requirements.

In court documents the attorneys cite a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision that redefines the requirements for commonality,
rendering this case "uncertifiable."

The documents also refer to deposition testimony from one of the
plaintiffs, that those attending a neighborhood meeting held in
March expressed little to no interest in filing a lawsuit.

". . . this testimony is sufficient, in and of itself to defeat
class certification, based on the long line of cases holding that
'courts are hesitant to certify a class of people who otherwise
would not be inclined towards litigation.'"

Mr. Perkins said damage to property and the nuisance of foul odors
are not the only reported problems.

"Some people find that if gives them headaches and causes redness
of eyes among other symptoms," Mr. Perkins said.

Physical ailments are not part of the lawsuit though, Perkins
said.

"The bottom line is that the value of the property owned by the
folks that live near this mill is tremendously reduced due to the
fact that nobody wants to live in a home exposed to this dangerous
gas," Mr. Perkins said.

Judge Woodrum gave each side until May 16 to submit proposed
orders.  He did not set a time for making a decision on the class
action status.


HECKMANN CORP: Ordered to Produce Docs in Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heckmann Corporation is required to produce certain documents to
plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, according to the Company's March 8, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against the Company and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class
Action (C.A. No. 10-378-LPS-MPT), or the "Class Action".  The
Class Action alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the acquisition of China Water and Drinks Inc.
The Company responded by filing a motion to transfer the Class
Action to California and a motion to dismiss the case.  On October
6, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
to the District Court Judge to deny the motion to transfer.  On
October 8, 2010, the court-appointed lead plaintiff, Matthew
Haberkorn, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint that adds China
Water as a defendant.  On October 25, 2010, the Company filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on
the motion to transfer.  The court adopted the report and
recommendation on the motion to transfer on March 31, 2011.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint and a reply to lead plaintiff's opposition to the motion
to dismiss.  On June 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a
report and recommendation to the District Court Judge to deny the
motion to dismiss.  The Company filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the Company's objections.  On
October 25, 2011, the court heard oral argument on the Company's
objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to
dismiss.  The court has not yet ruled on the objections.

On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed motion to modify the
automatic discovery stay in place pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The Company filed an opposition
on February 13, 2012.  On February 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
entered an order modifying the discovery stay and requiring the
Company to produce documents to plaintiff that have been produced
in a derivative action.

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


IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Approval of Unitholders' Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
tentative settlement in principle to resolve a consolidated class
action lawsuit captioned In re IMH Secured Loan Fund Unitholders
Litigation, according to the Company's March 30, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

As a result of the unprecedented disruptions in the general real
estate and related markets and the rapid decline in the global and
U.S. economies, on October 1, 2008, pursuant to its operating
agreement, IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC (the "Fund"), the Company's
predecessor entity, suspended member redemption requests.  In
order to preserve liquidity in the ongoing credit crisis, the Fund
suspended regular monthly distributions to members in the second
quarter of 2009.  On June 18, 2010, following approval by members
representing 89% of membership units of the Fund voting on the
matter, the Fund became internally-managed through the acquisition
of Investors Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the "Manager") and converted
into a Delaware corporation in a series of transactions, the
Conversion Transactions.

On June 18, 2010, the Company the Conversion Transactions, whereby
the Fund was converted into a Delaware corporation and became
internally managed through the acquisition of the Manager.  In the
Conversion Transactions, the Company also acquired IMH Holdings,
LLC ("Holdings"), which is a Delaware limited liability company
and serves as a holding company for two wholly-owned subsidiaries,
IMH Management Services, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company, and SWI Management, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company ("SWIM").  IMH Management provides the Company and its
affiliates with human resources and administrative services and
SWIM manages the Strategic Wealth & Income Fund, LLC (the "SWI
Fund").

Various disputes have arisen relating to the consent
solicitation/prospectus used in connection with seeking member
approval of the Conversion Transactions.  Three proposed class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (on May 25, 2010, June 15, 2010, and June 17, 2010)
against the Company and certain affiliated individuals and
entities.  The May 25 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits contain similar
allegations, claiming, in general, that fiduciary duties owed to
Fund members and to the Fund were breached because, among other
things, the Conversion Transactions were unfair to Fund members,
constituted self-dealing and because the information provided
about the Conversion Transactions and related disclosures was
false and misleading.  The June 17, 2010 lawsuit focuses on
whether the Conversion Transactions constitute a "roll up"
transaction under the Fund's operating agreement, and seeks
damages for breach of the operating agreement.  The Company and
its affiliated co-defendants dispute these claims and have
vigorously defended themselves in these actions.

An action was also filed on June 14, 2010, in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against the Company and certain affiliated individuals
and entities by Fund members Ronald Tucek and Cliff Ratliff and
LGM Capital Partners, LLC (also known as The Committee to Protect
IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC).  This lawsuit claims that certain
fiduciary duties owed to Fund members and to the Fund were
breached during the proxy solicitation for the Conversion
Transactions.  These claims were consolidated into the putative
class action lawsuit captioned In re IMH Secured Loan Fund
Unitholders Litigation pending in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware against the Company, certain affiliated and
predecessor entities, and certain former and current of its
officers and directors ("Litigation") as Count Six wherein they
alleged a unique remedy for proxy expenses.  On or about
February 22, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle with LGM Capital Partners, LLC to resolve its claims set
forth in Count Six of the Litigation for an amount of $75,000 and
a full and final release of all of its claims.

The parties in the four actions were ordered to consolidate the
four actions for all purposes by the Delaware Court of Chancery,
which also ordered that a consolidated complaint be filed, to be
followed by consolidated discovery, and designated the plaintiffs'
counsel from the May 25, 2010 and June 17, 2010 lawsuits as co-
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The consolidated class action complaint
was filed on December 17, 2010.  After defendants filed a motion
to dismiss that complaint, the Chancery Court ordered plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint.  On
July 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint entitled
"Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Class Action Complaint"
("ACC").  On August 29, 2011, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
in Part the ACC.  Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition on
September 28, 2011, and defendants filed their reply brief on
November 2, 2011.  Oral argument on the Company's motion to
dismiss was scheduled to take place on February 13, 2012.  The
Company and its affiliated co-defendants dispute the claims in
this lawsuit and have vigorously defended themselves in that
litigation.

On January 31, 2012, the Company reached a tentative settlement in
principle to resolve all claims asserted by the class plaintiffs
in the Litigation, including the ACC, other than the claims of one
plaintiff.  The tentative settlement in principle, memorialized in
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") previously filed with the
Company's 8-K dated February 6, 2012, is subject to certain class
certification conditions, confirmatory discovery and final court
approval (including a fairness hearing).  The MOU contemplates a
full release and settlement of all claims, other than the claims
of the one non-settling plaintiff, against the Company and the
other defendants in connection with the claims made in the
Litigation.  The following are some of the key elements of the
tentative settlement:

   -- the Company will offer $20.0 million of 4% five-year
      subordinated notes to members of the Class in exchange for
      2,493,765 shares of IMH common stock at an exchange rate of
      $8.02 per share;

   -- the Company will offer to Class members that are accredited
      investors $10.0 million of convertible notes with the same
      financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued
      to NW Capital;

   -- the Company will deposit $1.6 million in cash into a
      settlement escrow account (less $0.23 million to be held in
      a reserve escrow account that is available for use by the
      Company to fund its defense costs for other unresolved
      litigation) which will be distributed (after payment of
      notice and administration costs and any amounts awarded by
      the Court for attorneys' fees and expense) to Class members
      in proportion to the number of the Company's shares held by
      them as of June 23, 2010;

   -- the Company will enact certain agreed upon corporate
      governance enhancements, including the appointment of two
      independent directors to the Company's board of directors
      upon satisfaction of certain conditions (but in no event
      prior to December 31, 2012) and the establishment of a
      five-person investor advisory committee (which may not be
      dissolved until such time as the Company has established a
      seven-member board of directors with at least a majority of
      independent directors); and

   -- provides additional restrictions on the future sale or
      redemption of the Company's common stock held by certain of
      its executive officers.

The Company has vigorously denied, and continues to vigorously
deny, that it has committed any violation of law or engaged in any
of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Litigation, but the
Company believes it is in the Company's best interests and the
interests of its stockholders to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could
have been asserted to rest.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the court will
approve the tentative settlement in principle.  Further, the
judicial process to ultimately settle this action is estimated to
take a minimum of six to nine months or longer.  If not approved,
the tentative settlement as outlined in the MOU may be terminated
and the Company will continue to vigorously defend this action.


IOWA: NAACP Says Cost Reason for Bias Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Noble, writing for DesMoinesRegoster.com, reports that the
court that rejected a class-action racial bias lawsuit was more
interested in saving the state of Iowa money than securing justice
for blacks, local NAACP officials charged in a news conference on
April 18.

The civil rights group brought together several plaintiffs and
activists in response to a Polk County judge's decision last week
to reject a suit covering 6,000 blacks passed over for state jobs
between 2003 and 2007.

"What you're telling African-Americans in state government in
regard to state hiring and promotion practices is that your lives
don't count," said the Rev. Keith Ratliff, a Des Moines pastor and
president of the Iowa-Nebraska Conference of the NAACP.  "What it
says to me is that this case has been about how not to burden the
state with a possible $71 million lawsuit, and not about justice
for Iowans who have received an injustice."

Rev. Ratliff and others spoke out strongly in favor of continued
legal action.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs have promised an appeal,
and the 32 named class-action plaintiffs have individual cases
pending as well.  But Rev. Ratliff also called on the state to act
independently of the court to improve its minority hiring
practices.

"We strongly support the appeal process, for all these people
wanted was an opportunity to have a job, an opportunity to work
here for their state," Rev. Ratliff said.  "No handouts, no
welfare, just allow me to work like anyone else.  They still have
been denied that opportunity."

Recommendations offered several years ago to improve hiring and
promotion practices still haven't been implemented, Rev. Ratliff
said, noting 10 recommendations offered by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 2007 in
cooperation with a state task force on minority hiring.

Continued inaction will damage Iowa's reputation as a progressive
state, Rev. Ratliff and Des Moines NAACP branch President Linda
Carter-Lewis said, adding that young, talented blacks might leave
the state in search of better opportunities.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, whose office has defended the
state in the case, expressed "gratitude" for the ruling in a
response released on April 17, and he emphasized that in most
cases state officials making hiring decisions weren't even aware
of an applicant's race.

"The plaintiffs had an expert who testified that even if the
agencies didn't know the race of the applicants, that somehow in a
subconscious way they did know and discriminated against African-
Americans," Mr. Miller said in a statement.  The judge in the case
"rejected this claim as clearly as he should have."

Among plaintiffs who spoke out at the NAACP event on April 18 was
Charles Zanders, who said the April 17 ruling was like "a slap in
the face."

Mr. Zanders said he applied for telecommunications positions with
the Iowa Communications Network in 2007 and 2008 after nearly 30
years of telecom experience with Qwest but was never hired or even
interviewed.

"I was well-qualified -- exceeded qualifications," he said.

Mr. Zanders has an individual legal claim pending, but he said the
April 17 ruling has "absolutely" caused him to lose faith in the
legal process.

"I have the smoking gun" proving hiring discrimination in his
case, Mr. Zanders said.  "But I'm not even sure it'd even make a
difference."

Another plaintiff, Beverly Couch, pledged to keep up the challenge
to the state's hiring practices.

"We are going to continue to fight until the system is fixed," she
said.


IRWIN INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 55,260 10-Inch Circular Saw Blades
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Irwin Industrial Tool Company, Huntersville, North Carolina,
announced a voluntary recall of about 55,260 units of Classic
Series Circular Saw Blade 3-Pack.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The saw blades can fall out of the bottom of the plastic
packaging, posing a laceration hazard.

Irwin has received three reports of the saw blades falling out of
the packaging.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves Irwin Classic Series 10-inch Circular Saw
Blade Limited Promotion 3-Packs.  The blister packs contain one
10-inch trim and finish saw blade with 60 teeth (60T) and two 10-
inch general purpose saw blades with 40 teeth (40T).  The blades
are stacked offset in the packs.  The packaging is blue, orange
and yellow and has the words "Irwin" and "Classic Series" on the
front top left corner and "3 Circular Saw Blades" on the front
lower left corner.  Model number "ICSLD3PK" is located on the
front top right corner.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12154.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide from approximately October
2011 through November 2011 for $40.

Consumers should immediately contact the firm to receive a free
storage container for the saw blades.  Consumers should not
disturb any saw blades that remain in the packaging but should
store the saw blades in the packaging in a safe and secure
location until the container arrives, then immediately transfer
the saw blades to the container and discard the original
packaging.  For additional information, contact Irwin at (800)
464-7946 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.irwinrecall.com/


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Insurer Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated continues to dispute an insurer's
assertion that the insurer is not responsible for attorneys' fees
in a class action complaint related to the Company's acquisition
of AMICAS Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s proposed acquisition by Thoma
Bravo, LLC.  A second similar action was filed in the same Court
in February 2010 and consolidated with the first action.  In March
2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and
agreed to be acquired by Merge Healthcare, the Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed an application for approximately
$5 million of attorneys' fees for its work on the case, which fee
petition AMICAS opposed.  The Company retained litigation counsel
to defend against the fee petition.  On December 4, 2010, the
Court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3.2 million in attorneys'
fees and costs.  AMICAS has appealed from the judgment.  The
Company previously tendered the defense in the matter to its
appropriate insurers, which provided coverage against the claims
asserted against AMICAS.  After receipt of the Court's attorneys'
fee award decision, the insurer denied policy coverage for
approximately $2.5 million of the fee award.  The Company does not
believe that the insurer's denial has merit and have retained
counsel to contest it.  The Company is vigorously asserting all of
its rights under its applicable insurance policies, which it
believes cover the claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or the
Company in connection with the fee award.

On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against AMICAS and
Merge Healthcare in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois seeking a declaration that it is not responsible for
the $2.5 million portion of the judgment rendered on December 4,
2010 by the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
Merge filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the insurer
must pay the full amount of the Superior Court's fee award, plus
additional damages.  An adverse outcome could negatively impact
the Company's financial condition and cash flow.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual report
filing with the SEC.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge Healthcare Incorporated
-- http://www.merge.com/-- provides healthcare information
technology solutions in the United States and internationally. Its
software solutions automate healthcare data and diagnostic
workflow to create an electronic record of the patient experience.


MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Potash Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company continues to defend potash antitrust class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 29, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 29, 2012.

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"); on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois; and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's
Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside
Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D.
Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop
Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly
sold and distributed potash throughout the United States.  On
November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the cases in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed
a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and
on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the
Gage's Fertilizer Case.

On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser
Cases.  The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed
and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants
during the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period").  The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct.  The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive
relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including
treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The plaintiffs also
seek costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases").  The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases.  On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases.  The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint are substantially identical to the
complaint in the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class
Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Unjust Enrichment States."  The plaintiffs generally sought
injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages,
including treble damages for violations of the antitrust laws of
the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law, arising from
defendants' alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract,
combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the
Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of the
Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer protection and unfair
competition laws of the Consumer Fraud States, as well as
restitution or disgorgement of profits, for unjust enrichment
under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment States, and any
penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration
where permitted by applicable state law.  The plaintiffs also seek
costs of lawsuit and reasonable attorneys' fees where allowed by
law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a)
for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law.  The
court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions
to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section.  The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal.  On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law.  On
September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims.  On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and
subsequently has held an en banc rehearing.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust
Cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
them.  At this stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation or determine whether it
will have a material effect on the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources.

Based in Plymouth, Minnesota, The Mosaic Company --
http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer and marketer of
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients.  The Company's
Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production
facilities in Florida, which produce concentrated phosphate crop
nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and
processing plants in Louisiana, which produce concentrated
phosphate crop nutrients.  The Company's Potash business segment
owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada
and the U.S., which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal
feed ingredients and industrial products.  Potash sales include
domestic and international sales.


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

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action and the
motion is before the court for decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 29, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

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

Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC's primary business is its
investments in tax-exempt and taxable bonds secured predominantly
by affordable multifamily housing properties.  The Company is
based in Baltimore, Maryland.


NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Dog Treats
---------------------------------------------------------
WLS890AM reports that an Illinois dog owner who claims tainted
treats killed his Pomeranian filed a $5 million class-action
lawsuit on April 18 against pet food maker Nestle Purina.

Dennis Adkins filed the suit in federal court against the Waggin'
Train brand, its parent company Nestle Purina and Walmart, where
he bought the treats this March.

Mr. Adkins claims he bought the "Yam Good" dog treats -- made of
yams wrapped in chicken jerky, and made in China -- because the
package boasted they were "just wholesome goodness" and "what
nature intended."

But after three days of feeding them to his 9-year-old Pomerian
Cleopatra the dog became sick, the suit said.  It died of kidney
failure 11 days later, on March 26.

Mr. Adkins claims he didn't give the dog more than the recommended
one treat per day, and that his other dog, 9-year-old Pharaoh,
didn't eat the treats and didn't get sick.

Last November, the Food and Drug Administration warned that some
pet owners and veterinarians reported dogs who ate chicken jerky
treats made in China became ill, some with kidney failure, and
that some died.  None of the products were recalled, and no
specific brands were mentioned in the FDA warning.

Keith Schopp, a spokesman for Nestle Purina and Waggin' Train,
says the Waggin' Train products are safe to feed as directed.  He
declined to comment on the pending litigation.

"We are aware of the concerns regarding chicken jerky from China
and we have been in contact with the FDA regarding the
investigation," said Walmart spokesman Dianna Gee.  She said
Walmart requires pet food and treat makers to have the same level
of safety certifications as brands that make food for human
consumption.

The FDA has been investigating a possible link between Chinese-
made chicken jerky products and pet illnesses since 2007, but
wide-ranging testing has not shown any definitive cause for the
illnesses, according to an update posted on the FDA's Web site
March 27.

The illness affects the kidneys, and symptoms include decreased
activity, vomiting, diarrhea, and increased water consumption and
urination, according to the FDA.  Most dogs have recovered, but
some deaths have been reported.  Because no firm cause has been
determined, the FDA has not ordered any recalls but is still
actively investigating and urges pet owners to monitor their
animals closely if they choose to feed them chicken jerky treats.

"If evidence is found linking a contaminant to our products, we
will take appropriate action" Ms. Gee said.

The seven-count suit claims breach of warranty, unjust enrichment,
negligence, product liability and failure to warn.  The suit
claims the class of potential defendants is at least 100 consumers
nation-wide, and that the potential amount of damages exceeds $5
million.


OCEAN RIG: Lawsuit Over OceanFreight Merger Now Closed
------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., related in its March 14, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, that a lawsuit relating to
the merger transaction between OceanFreight Inc. and Pelican
Stockholdings Inc. is now closed.

On October 13, 2011, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
entitled Litwin v. OceanFreight, Inc. et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against OceanFreight, DryShips Inc., Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., Pelican
Stockholdings Inc. and certain current and former directors of
OceanFreight, or collectively, the Defendants (Case No. 1:11-cv-
7218). The complaint was then amended on October 14, 2011. The
plaintiff alleged violations of certain provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder, as well as
breaches of fiduciary duties owed to OceanFreight by its
directors, purportedly aided and abetted by the other Defendants,
in connection with OceanFreight's agreement to merge with Pelican
Stockholdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

The amended complaint sought to rescind the agreement to merge and
enjoin the "OceanFreight merger," as well as an award of actual
and punitive damages.  The plaintiff made a motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction to delay the
OceanFreight merger, which motion was denied on November 2, 2011.
The plaintiff did not appeal the denial of her motion.  On January
10, 2012, she voluntarily dismissed all her claims alleged in the
amended complaint, with prejudice, as to all Defendants, including
the Company.  The case is now closed.


OILSANDS QUEST: Securities Suit Stayed Due to Ch. 15 Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities class action lawsuit against Oilsands Quest
Inc. has been stayed on an interim basis following the Company's
commencement of U.S. Chapter 15 proceedings, according to the
Company's March 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2012.

On February 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint (the
"Original Complaint") was filed against the Company and certain
current and former officers of the Company on behalf of investors
who purchased or sold the Company's securities between August 14,
2006, and July 14, 2009, alleging claims of securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and control person liability for such
fraud under Section 20(a) of the same act, arising out of the
Company's accounting for its acquisition of an interest in OQI
Sask in August 2006.  On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in that
putative class action filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") alleging the same legal causes of action but making
the following changes from the Original Complaint:  a) expanding
the putative class period so that it runs from March 20, 2006, to
January 13, 2011; b) naming as additional defendants eight
individuals who are current or former directors of the Company as
well as two additional corporate defendants, McDaniel & Associates
Consultants Ltd. and TD Securities, Inc.; and c) basing the
claimed fraud on a new theory that the Company overstated the
value of its mineral rights as a result of misstatements about,
among other things, the potential for extracting bitumen from oil
sands lands for which the Company had exploration and development
permits.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and the
Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

On June 6, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  On June 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The Company filed its reply
to the plaintiffs' opposition on June 27, 2011, and on July 29,
2011, the court heard oral arguments and reserved decision.  On
August 5, 2011, the two remaining defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On September 16, 2011, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On
September 29, 2011, the defendants answered the Amended Complaint.

As a consequence of the Company's commencing U.S. Chapter 15
proceedings, the case has been stayed on an interim basis until
the Court can hear and decide the motion seeking a stay for the
pendency of the U.S. Chapter 15 proceedings.


OMEGA FLEX: Settles Suit vs. Former Insurer for $4.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc., disclosed in its March 8, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that a former
insurer will pay the Company $4,700,000 to settle a coverage
action Omega filed against it.

In 2007, the Company instituted a legal complaint against a former
insurer, seeking reimbursement of amounts paid in defense of a
lawsuit that was brought against the Company in 2004.  As of March
2, 2012, the Company agreed to settle its lawsuit and entered into
a definitive settlement agreement with the former insurer for
reimbursement of defense costs incurred by the Company in the 2004
lawsuit and attorneys' fees incurred in the coverage action.  The
settlement agreement provides for a payment of $4,700,000 to the
Company by insurer within 20 days of the effective date of the
agreement.  In exchange, the Company released all claims against
the insurer arising out of the class action litigation and the
coverage litigation, and further agreed to dismiss the coverage
litigation currently pending in court.  In addition, the Company
agreed to indemnify the insurer against any claims that may be
brought against the insurer by the Company's former corporate
parent, Mestek, Inc. with respect to the claims released in the
settlement agreement.

Omega, known previously 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.


ONE WORLD: Recalls 89T STOK Gas Grills Due to Fire & Burn Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with One World Technologies Inc. of Anderson, South
Carolina, announced a voluntary recall of about 87,600 Gas Grills
in the United States of America and 1,400 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The regulator on the grill can leak propane gas, which can ignite,
posing fire and burn hazard to consumers.

The firm is aware of 569 reports of regulators leaking propane
gas.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves STOK Island and STOK Quattro gas grills.  The
STOK Island has a round grill base and two burners.  "STOK" is
written on the grill cover and a label on the bottom of the grill
stand.  The STOK Quattro gas grill is a rectangular, four-burner
grill.  "STOK" is printed on the grill's lid.  To identify whether
a specific Island or Quattro grill is included in this recall, you
will need to look at the grill's regulator.  The recalled grills
have regulators on them with the model number "AZF" on the front
and a date code between 1046 and 1143 on the back of the
regulator.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12152.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot stores nationwide and in Canada and Direct Tools Factory
Outlet stores nationwide from March 2011 through February 2012 for
between $79 and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled grills and
contact One World Technologies for a free replacement gas
regulator for the grill.  For additional information, please
contact One World Technologies toll-free at (800) 867-9624 between
8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.stokgrills.com/


POSTROCK ENERGY: Paid $3MM in Jan. Under Kansas Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
PostRock Energy Corporation paid $3.0 million in January pursuant
to a court-approved settlement resolving a putative class action
lawsuit filed in Kansas, according to the Company's March 8, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company had been sued in royalty owner lawsuits filed in
Oklahoma and Kansas.

                        Oklahoma Lawsuit

In Oklahoma, lawsuits by a group of individual royalty owners and
by a putative class representing all remaining royalty owners were
filed in the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma.
Generally, the lawsuits alleged that the Company wrongfully
deducted post-production costs from the plaintiffs' royalties and
engaged in self-dealing agreements resulting in a less than market
price for the gas production.  The Company denied the allegations.
Settlements were reached in each of the cases, and on July 28,
2011, the Court entered a final order approving the class action
settlement.  On July 29, 2011, the Company paid $5.6 million in
settlement of both Oklahoma lawsuits.

                         Kansas Lawsuit

The Kansas lawsuit was a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, brought on
behalf of all the Company's royalty owners in that state.
Plaintiffs generally alleged that the Company failed to properly
make royalty payments by, among other things, charging post-
production costs to royalty owners in violation of the underlying
lease contracts, paying royalties based on sale point volumes
rather than wellhead volumes, allocating expenses in excess of the
actual and reasonable post-production costs incurred, allocating
production costs and marketing costs to royalty owners, and making
royalty payments after the statutorily prescribed time for doing
so without paying interest thereon.  The Company denied
plaintiffs' claims.  The parties reached a settlement and on
December 30, 2011, the Court entered an order certifying a class
for settlement purposes consisting of all current and former
PostRock royalty and overriding royalty owners, approving the
parties' settlement and dismissing the action.  The settlement
includes a payment of $3.0 million that was made in January 2012,
and a payment of $4.5 million to be made by January 31, 2013, for
a total of $7.5 million.

At December 31, 2011, the Company had reserved $7.1 million for
the estimated cost to resolve the Kansas action.  The $7.1 million
included the $3.0 million paid in January 2012 and $4.1 million
representing the present value of an additional $4.5 million to be
paid by January 31, 2013.  The $4.1 million reserve is reflected
in other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.
The Company recorded litigation reserve expense related to its
Oklahoma and Kansas lawsuits of $11.5 million for the year ended
December 31, 2011.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Court Grants Class Cert. in "Hellum" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco
issued in January 2012 a tentative ruling granting Christian
Hellum, et al.'s motion for class certification, Prosper
Marketplace, Inc. disclosed in its March 30, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

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

On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.
On January 26, 2012, the court issued a tentative ruling granting
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

                        Greenwich Action

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

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay the Company's
past and future defense costs in the class action lawsuit up to $2
million.  Greenwich subsequently made payments to the Company in
the amount of $2 million to reimburse the Company for the defense
costs it had incurred in the class action lawsuit.  As a result,
Greenwich has now satisfied its obligations with respect to the
Company's defense costs for the Hellum lawsuit, with the exception
of $142,584 in pre-judgment interest that Greenwich will be
required to pay to the Company when a final judgment has been
entered in the lawsuit and all appeals have been exhausted.

On July 1, 2011, the Company and Greenwich entered into a
Stipulated Order of Judgment pursuant to which the Company agreed
to dismiss its remaining claims against Greenwich.  On August 12,
2011, Greenwich filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision
regarding Greenwich's duty to defend up to $2 million.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the class action
lawsuit.  The Company cannot, however, presently determine or
estimate the final outcome of the lawsuit, and there can be no
assurance that it will be finally resolved in the Company's favor.
If the class action lawsuit is not resolved in the Company's
favor, the Company might be obliged to pay damages, and might be
subject to such equitable relief as a court may determine.
Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an accrued loss
contingency in connection with its sale of notes through the
platform prior to November 2008.  Accounting for loss
contingencies involves the existence of a condition, situation or
set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss
that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future event(s)
occur or fail to occur.  An estimated loss in connection with a
loss contingency shall be recorded by a charge to current
operations if both of the following conditions are met: first, the
amount can be reasonably estimated; and second, the information
available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates
that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date
of the financial statements.

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


ROSETTA STONE: Still Awaits Court OK of Wage Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. continues to await court approval of the
proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in California, according to the Company's March 14, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On or about April 28, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50.  The complaint alleges that
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed as salaried managers by the Company in its retail
locations in California are due unpaid wages and other relief for
the Company's violations of state wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs
moved to amend their complaint to include a nationwide class on
January 21, 2011.  In November 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys and
the Company agreed to the mediator's proposed settlement terms,
and as a result, as of September 30, 2011, the Company reserved
$0.6 million for the proposed settlement amount. Approval of the
proposed settlement by the court is pending.  The Company disputes
the plaintiffs' claims and it has not admitted any wrongdoing with
respect to the case.

Rosetta Stone Inc. -- http://www.rosettastone.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, provides technology-based language-learning
solutions in the United States and internationally. The company
develops, markets, and sells language-learning solutions, such as
software, online services, mobile applications, and audio practice
tools in approximately 30 languages primarily under the Rosetta
Stone brand.  The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered
in Arlington, Virginia.


SAKAR INT'L: Recalls 48,000 Travel Chargers Due to Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sakar International Inc. of Edison, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 48,000 units of Digital Concepts Compact
Travel Charger.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic holding the screws can break, causing the screws to
come loose and the casing to separate.  This can expose energized
components, exposing users to electrocution or electric shock.

Sakar International has not received any reports of the charger
falling apart, or of electrocution or electric shock.  No injuries
have been reported.

The charger holds two AA or AAA batteries, is silver colored and
has a sticker on the top which says "Digital Concepts" and
"Compact Travel Charger."  This recall involves item numbers CH-
1600S and CH-1600-RS which are identified with the date code MID#:
0801110.  Both numbers can be found on the white label on the
underside of the charger.  Also on the underside are three screws
and a retractable power plug.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12153.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cobra
Digital, Lot-Less, Ocean State Jobbers and RadioShack from January
2011 through February 2012 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled battery
charger and contact Sakar International Inc. for a replacement
product.  For additional information, contact Sakar International
Inc. toll free at (877) 397-8200 at any time or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.sakar.com/recall/


SHELL: 7th Cir. Says Printing Credit Card Receipts Within Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals judge had trouble finding the purpose of a class action
lawsuit filed against Shell over its credit card receipts.

Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit wrote on April 18 that Shell's practice of
printing the last four digits of a customer's account number on
its receipts is within the law and has not caused Shell's
customers any actual harm.

The class argues that an investigation of industry practices could
show Shell is printing the wrong four numbers and could be subject
to financial penalties.

Judge Easterbrook wrote that the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) does not define which numbers should be
posted on a receipt, only that no more than five of them can be.

"(W)e need not essay a definition of 'card number' as an original
matter, because we can't see why anyone should care how the term
is defined," Judge Easterbrook wrote.

"A precise definition does not matter as long as the receipt
contains too few digits to allow identity theft.  The Act does its
work by limiting the number of exposed digits, and Shell Oil
printed one fewer digit than the Act allows."

Plaintiff Natalie van Straaten has not alleged that Shell's choice
of digits has left the class at risk of identity theft, nor has
she alleged that the class has suffered any injury.  Instead, she
is seeking penalties under the Fair Credit Report Act of at least
$100 per instance.

"An award of $100 to everyone who has used a Shell Card at a Shell
station would exceed $1 billion, despite the absence of a penny's
worth of injury," Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Representing the class are The Coffman Law Firm of Beaumont,
Texas; McRae & Metcalf of Tallahassee, Fla.; Martin J. Oberman of
Chicago; and Donaldson & Guin of Chicago.

Shell was appealing U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning's denial
of its motion for summary judgment.  Judge Manning is a judge in
Illinois' northern district.

Though Judge Manning ruled that Shell's interpretation of FACTA
was incorrect, Judge Easterbrook says the company did not
willfully violate it.  Therefore, it can't be held liable and
should be awarded summary judgment.

Shell now prints zero digits on its receipts.

"Thus the substantive question in this litigation will not recur
for Shell or anyone else; it need never be answered," Judge
Easterbrook wrote.

The Lakin Law Firm sued Lowe's over similar FACTA claims in
Madison County in 2008.  The case was removed to federal court in
2009 and settled last year for $7 million.

Lawyers were awarded $1.72 million in fees.

Lead plaintiff Doris Masters received $2,500.

Class members were to receive anywhere between $25 and $40 in gift
cards.

Ms. Masters alleged that the Lowe's store at 159 Whistle Stop Dr.
in Glen Carbon violated FACTA when all 16 digits of her credit
card were printed on a receipt.

FACTA, which took effect in 2003, mandated that stores change
their equipment to print only the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customer receipts.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits related to its strap tie holdown products,
according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court, alleging property damage as a result of
allegedly premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown
products installed in certain buildings at the Ocean Pointe
housing development in Honolulu, Hawaii: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes,
Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11
("Case 1"); Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-
1-1491-06 SSM ("Case 2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc.,
Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc.
et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-
1-1932-08 ("Case 4"). Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases
2 and 3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed
on August 19, 2009. Case 1 is a class action brought by the owners
of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses. Case 1 was originally
filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction,
Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was
voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new allegedly
representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the builders and
developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company, claiming that
either the Company's strap tie holdowns were defective in design
or manufacture or the Company failed to provide adequate warnings
regarding the products' susceptibility to corrosion in certain
environments. Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the
insurance company for the builders and developers against the
Company claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct
problems allegedly caused by the Company's products. Case 4 is a
putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners of allegedly
affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the
developer of the Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third
party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for
which Haseko may be liable are the fault of the Company.  None of
the Ocean Pointe Cases alleges a specific amount of damages,
although each of the Ocean Pointe Cases seeks compensatory
damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages.

The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Ocean Pointe Cases, including, among other
things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any
problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the
responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors
and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the
amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if
needed.  At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered and the
extent of such liability, if any, remain unknown.  Management
believes the Ocean Pointe Cases may not be resolved for an
extended period.  The Company intends to defend itself vigorously
in connection with the Ocean Pointe Cases.  Based on facts
currently known to the Company, the Company believes that all or
part of the claims alleged in the Ocean Pointe Cases may be
covered by its insurance policies.

On April 19, 2011, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing
Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK.  In the National
Union action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, one of several insurance companies that
issued Commercial General Liability insurance policies to the
Company, seeks declaratory relief with respect to its obligations
to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company
Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie holdown products in
the Ocean Pointe Cases.  By an order dated November 7, 2011, all
proceedings in the National Union action have been stayed. When
and if the stay in the National Union action is lifted, the
Company intends vigorously to defend all claims advanced by
National Union.

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-07, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on July
20, 2011. The case alleges premature corrosion of the Company's
strap tie holdown products in a housing development at Ewa Beach
in Honolulu, Hawaii. The case is a putative class action brought
by owners of allegedly affected homes. The Complaint alleges that
the Company's strap products and mudsill anchors are
insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to comply with
Honolulu's building code. The Company is currently investigating
the claims asserted in the complaint, including, among other
things: the existence and extent of the alleged corrosion, if any;
the building code provisions alleged to be applicable and, if
applicable, whether the products complied; the buildings affected;
the responsibility of the general contractor, various
subcontractors and other construction professionals for the
alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the
costs of repair, if any are needed. At this time, the likelihood
that the Company will be found liable for any damage allegedly
suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown.
The Company denies liability of any kind and has filed a motion to
dismiss the action on various factual and legal grounds. If the
case is not dismissed, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in the action.

The Company has not yet been able to determine whether an
unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and has not
been able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any
possible loss.  As a result, no amounts have been accrued or
disclosed in the Company's 2011 consolidated financial statements
with respect to the legal proceedings.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction. The company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC: Challenges Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that using a summary judgment motion to avoid a trial is
not appropriate, say the defendants in a St. Clair County class
action suit that was certified last year by Circuit Judge Lloyd
Cueto.

Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and Philip S. Dudak responded to
plaintiff Mixon Insurance Agency's motion for summary judgment on
April 13, stating the case should be decided by a jury.

"The plaintiff's motion attempts to sidestep the burden for
summary judgment," wrote defense attorneys Michael Bedesky and
Leslie M. Warren of Reed, Armstrong, Gorman, Mudge & Morrissey.

The defendants further argue that summary judgment should not be
granted when reasonable persons could draw different inferences
from facts.

"The plaintiff's evidence consists of expert testimony, a hard
drive and one fax to East St. Louis," their response states.  "The
plaintiff's expert testimony is contracted by the defendant's
expert testimony.  A reasonable person could infer the hard drive
is unreliable.  The fax to East St. Louis was sent without the
defendant's knowledge.  The issues presented by the plaintiff for
summary judgment are to be resolved by the jury."

The Granite City chiropractic clinic and its owner, Mr. Dudak,
were sued in 2009 over claims they violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited fax
advertisements.

Because Mixon and at least 39 other businesses allegedly received
the unsolicited faxes, they claim they momentarily lost the use of
their fax machines and were required to use ink toner and paper.
In addition, they claim employees wasted their time to get faxes
when they could have been doing something else.

Mixon Insurance is represented by Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and
Urban in Belleville, Brian J. Wanca of Anderston - Wanca in
Rolling Meadows and Phillip A. Bock of Bock and Hatch in Chicago.

Judge Cueto certified the case Aug. 8, 2011.

In their response to Mixon's motion for summary judgment, the
defendants also state they did not know of any law prohibiting fax
advertising.

Mr. Dudak states that he paid the company "Business to Business
Solutions" $272 in September 2006 so that "BTB" would fax
advertisements about his chiropractic services in Granite City and
Madison County.

Mixon claims BTB faxed 4,631 of Mr. Dudak's advertisement in
September and October 2006.

Last September, Judge Cueto approved that a class notice could be
distributed by fax.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case number: 09-L-509.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Rights of Way Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UniSource Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Tucson Electric Power
Company was a defendant in a class action filed in February 2009
in the United States District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico by
members of the Navajo Nation.  The plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that the rights of way for defendants' transmission lines
on Navajo lands were improperly granted and that the compensation
paid for such rights of way was inadequate.  The plaintiffs were
requesting, among other things, that the transmission lines on
these lands be removed.  In June 2009, TEP and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on procedural
grounds.  In March 2010, the Court granted several of the
defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final judgment
dismissing the case in April 2010.  The plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in May 2010,
appealing the BIA's decision to grant the rights of way that were
the subject of the now-dismissed complaint.  In June 2010, the BIA
found that the Notice of Appeal failed to meet the minimum filing
requirements.  In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new Notices
of Appeal concerning the same rights of way.  The appeals are
currently pending.  TEP cannot predict the outcome of these
appeals.

No updates were reported in Unisource's February 28, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy
Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development
Company (UED).  The company conducts its business through three
segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric.  TEP is an electric
utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson,
Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas,
Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas
and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern
Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating
Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern
Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to
UNS Electric.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Antitrust Class Suit in New York Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with several other global logistics
providers) has been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust
class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision
Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding)
Ltd., et. al.).  This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged
in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

The Company says it has incurred, and may in the future incur,
significant legal fees and other costs in connection with these
governmental investigations and lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 29, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 31, 2012.


UXC LIMITED: Disputes Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
UXC Limited on April 17 disclosed that SP AusNet, Utility Services
Corporation Limited (USC, a wholly owned subsidiary of UXC), the
Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Country Fire
Authority, and the State of Victoria (Victorian Police) are
currently defendants in class action legal proceedings before the
Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the  February 7, 2009 Black
Saturday bushfire known as the Kilmore East fire.

USC has previously filed its Defence in these proceedings and also
filed a counterclaim against SP AusNet, the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, the Country Fire Authority, and
the State of Victoria (Victorian Police).

Utility Asset Management (UAM), previously a wholly owned business
unit of USC, had for many years provided asset inspection services
for SP AusNet.  UAM believes that it has at all times complied
with its duties and obligations.  UAM has previously extended its
full support and assistance to the Bushfires Royal Commission.
UAM was sold to a third party, Utility Services Group Holdings, in
September 2011 as part of UXC's divestment of its Field Solutions
Group.

In a new action, the State of Victoria, the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Parks Victoria and Roads
Corporation have now filed a claim against Sp AusNet and USC in
the Supreme Court of Victoria.  The action is substantially
similar to the class action proceedings already on foot, and it is
expected that many of the same issues which have, and are, already
being addressed in the class action proceeding will arise in this
new proceeding.  The quantum of the claim estimated by the
plaintiffs, subject to further particulars, is for some $22
million.  The claim is primarily for loss and damage to property
including to schools, reserves, parks and roads.

USC denies it has any liability or culpability arising from the
Kilmore East fire and will vigorously defend any proceedings
against it.  USC and its lawyers are considering whether to file
further notices to join this claim to the other proceedings
already on foot and progressing.

USC has liability insurance in place which provides cover for
bushfire liability.  USC's insurance coverage is consistent with
industry standards and practice.

While court proceedings are in progress, it is not appropriate for
further comment to be made in connection with the litigation
process.

UXC Limited is an ASX listed Australian business solutions
company, and the largest Australian owned ICT consultancy firm.
UXC services medium to large entities in the private and public
sectors across Australia and New Zealand.  UXC provides ICT
Solutions in Consulting, Business Applications and Infrastructure
that support its customers to design, implement & enhance, and
operate & manage their ICT requirements.


XS SCUBA: Recalls 17,000 Miflex High Pressure Diving Hoses
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with distributor/importer, XS Scuba, Inc., of Santa
Ana, California, and manufacturer: Miflex 2, Villasanta, Italy,
announced a voluntary recall of about 17,000 units of Miflex High
Pressure Scuba Diving Hose.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The diving hose can rupture reducing the available air supply to
the diver, posing a drowning hazard.

XS Scuba has received reports of 189 hose failures.  There have
been no reports of injuries.

The high pressure hose is used to monitor cylinder pressure for
the air supply in tanks for scuba diving.  The hoses have MFX
stamped on the hose's end fitting.  They were sold as individual
replacement gauge hoses and as cascade hoses and in the following
kits and model numbers:

   * Deluxe Cylinder Equalizer w/ Miflex HP hose P/N AC366
   * Miflex Two-Gauge Console HL300/HL300M
   * Miflex Rebreather Kits MRB-EVO-LG, MRB-EVO-MD &
     MRB-ISP-POST-LG

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12155.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at scuba
diving retailers and online between May 2009 and April 2012 for
between $44 and $60 for individual hoses.

Consumers should immediately stop using the hoses and contact XS
Scuba to receive instructions for obtaining a free replacement
hose.  For additional information, contact XS Scuba toll free at
(888) 249-5404 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday and, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.xsscuba.com/


                           *********

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  * * *