CAR_Public/120426.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 82

                             Headlines

ADT CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in ADT Dealer Litigation
ADVANCED MEDICAL: App. Ct. Upholds Class Cert. in Anderson Suit
APPLE CORP: Briefs for Settlement Conference Due Today
BANK OF AMERICA: D&O Settle Shareholder Class Action for $20 Mil.
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Challenged

BOONE COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Local Sales Taxes
BRASKEM SA: Appeals in Suits Over Work Breaks Remain Pending
BRASKEM SA: Expects "Union of Workers" Suits to Be Judged by 2013
CAMTEK LTD: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of "Lapiner" Suit
CHASE HOME: Protection of Class List Upheld in "Pittman" Lawsuit

CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Class Suits in North Carolina
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Oklahoma
CHINA NATURAL: Gainey & McKeena, Egleston File Class Action
CHINA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending

COCHLEAR LIMITED: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Cochlear Implants
CONSECO LIFE: Enters Into Tentative Class Action Settlement
DAIRY PROCESSORS: May 1 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
DALLAS, TX: ICE Faces Class Action Over Ankle Monitors
DELPHI FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suit for $49 Million

DISCOVER CARD: DFS Faces TCPA-Violation Suit in California
EME HOMER: Court Dismissed Class Claims vs. Parent in March
GREEN BANKSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
GREEN BANKSHARES: Two Class Suits Over CBF Transaction Resolved
GREG MORTENSON: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Book

HOME DEPOT: Sued for Denying Suitable Seating for Employees
HORIZON LINES: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alaska Tradelane
INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit vs. iSatori Stayed
INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Continues to Defend "Aviles" Suit
KEYSPAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Mail Fraud Verdict on A. Bosgang

LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement Fund in "Lane's" Suit Closed in June
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Wins Court Order to Prevent Asset Seizure
MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Likely to Include More Damages
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of March 1 Under Suits Deal
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Canadian Price-Fixing Suits

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Concussion Suit Lead Plaintiff Dies
NEW ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
PUBLIX: Managers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
RADWARE LTD: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
SAIC INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over CityTime

SEA STAR: Faces Antitrust Suit Following Class Action Settlement
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Awaits Rulings on N.Y. Class Suit Dismissal Bids
THEGLOBE.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
TOYOTA MOTOR: Some Acceleration Claims Tentatively Dismissed
VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Israel

VITA COCO: July 23 Deadline Set for Settlement Claim Form


                          *********

ADT CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in ADT Dealer Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation is awaiting a supreme court decision with
respect to plaintiffs' request for an appeal hearing on an
appellate court ruling dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in a
class action lawsuit filed in Colorado, according to the Company's
April 10, 2012, Form 10-12B filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that the Company had charged to its authorized
dealers upon purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation
related to accounting practices employed by the Company's former
management, which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company
settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and
related parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the
United States and in other countries, including a class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado,
alleging breach of contract and other claims related to the
Company's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002
and 2003.  In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict
in the Company's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key
claims.  Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict in the Company's favor in October 2011.  The plaintiffs
have requested that the Supreme Court of Colorado hear an appeal
of the Court of Appeals' decision.  The Supreme Court has not yet
ruled.

The Company expects a favorable resolution of the class action
lawsuit in Colorado.  While it is not possible at this time to
predict the final outcome of the Colorado lawsuit or other
lawsuits stemming from dealer terminations, the Company does not
believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


ADVANCED MEDICAL: App. Ct. Upholds Class Cert. in Anderson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals of Kansas
affirmed a district court's certification of the class action
lawsuit ANDERSON OFFICE SUPPLY, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v.
ADVANCED MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., and JEFFREY L. DRAKE, D/B/A
DRAKE CHIROPRACTIC, Case No. 105,868.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2009 in the Harvey County
District Court, alleging that Advanced Medical violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act when Business to Business
Solutions, on the company's behalf, transmitted a fax
advertisement to Anderson.  The suit seeks monetary relief and an
injunction against Advanced Medical.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 16, 2012 Order is available
at http://is.gd/AtGGcwfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Advanced Medical are:

          Lynn W. Hursh, Esq.
          Casey O. Housley, Esq.
          Gerald A. King, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Tel No: (816) 221-3420
          Fax No: (816) 221-0786
          E-mail: lhursh@armstrongteasdale.com
                  chousley@armstrongteasdale.com
                  gking@armstrongteasdale.com

Counsel for Anderson Office are:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
          GUNDERSON, SHARP & WALKE, LLP
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Tel No: (713)221-2337 (for Sharp)
                  (913)901-9099 (for Frankland)
          E-mail: dsharp@midwest-law.com
                  bfrankland@midwest-law.com


               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602-1233
          Tel No: (312) 658-5500


               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


APPLE CORP: Briefs for Settlement Conference Due Today
------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple faces
settlement talks early next week after striking a deal on April 23
in the antitrust class action over digital music products like
iTunes.

The order came shortly after Apple attorneys met with
representatives for the consumers and resellers who claim Apple
monopolized digital music and digital music players between 2006
and 2009 with its iTunes and iPod products.

U.S. District Judge James Ware called for briefs "focusing on the
issue of class damages" in preparation for a settlement conference
set Tuesday, May 1.  The meeting will carry into May 2 if
necessary.

The briefs are due today, April 26.

Apple faces claims that its anticompetitive conduct caused
consumers to overpay for iPods, in violation of the Sherman Act
and California's Clayton and Cartwright Acts.

The amended class action filed in 2007 claims that Apple used iPod
software and firmware updates to prevent consumers from playing
music purchased from non-Apple sources on iPods.

Judge Ware certified the class of allegedly ripped-off resellers
and consumers late last year.  Class notices are due to be
distributed May 8.

Bonny Sweeney, Thomas Merrick, Alexandra Bernay and Carmen Medici
of the San Diego firm Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd are lead
counsel representing the designated lead plaintiffs, Somtai Troy
Charoensak, Mariana Rosen and Melanie Tucker.

Apple is represented by:

          Robert Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          Craig Stewart, Esq.
          David Kiernan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street
          26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  cestewart@jonesday.com
                  dkiernan@jonesday.com

A copy of the Order Re. Settlement Conference in The Apple iPod
iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-00037 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at http://is.gd/n2gVJy


BANK OF AMERICA: D&O Settle Shareholder Class Action for $20 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fitzpatrick, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
current and former Bank of America Corp. directors and ex-Chief
Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis have agreed to a $20 million
settlement in one lawsuit alleging shareholders were wronged
during the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co., according to court
documents.

The proposed agreement, which would resolve claims that directors
breached their fiduciary duty to the bank when they didn't inform
investors about ballooning losses at the troubled New York
securities firm, would not end all Merrill-related legal headaches
for the Charlotte, N.C. lender.  The U.S. District Court case is
one of several similar suits pending before federal and state
courts in New York and Delaware.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York, Kevin
Castel, has to approve the $20 million settlement between the
directors, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement
System and the Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System.
Lawyers for plaintiffs in a similar case pending in Delaware are
challenging the pact in the federal case.  Judge Castel has asked
the directors and plaintiffs in the federal case to show "why they
should not be enjoined from consummating" the arrangement,
according to a court document.  The amount, $20 million, is small
relative to the size of the claims because the pay out is designed
to be covered by directors and officers liability insurance, said
one person close to the case.

The spate of Merrill-related cases are threatening to drag out a
painful period for a bank still weighed down by the decisions it
made during the financial crisis.  Chief Executive Officer Brian
Moynihan recently sat for a deposition in a separate class action
case that alleges shareholders were misled about the Merrill
losses before the $19.4 billion purchase was approved. Defendants
in that case included Mr. Lewis, former chief financial officer
Joseph Price and directors.

The New York Attorney General's Office is pursuing a separate
civil fraud suit relating to the Merrill takeover that began under
former Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.  Defendants in that case
include the bank, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Price.


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------
United Press International reports that a settlement over a class-
action lawsuit between Bank of America and two pension funds is
being challenged by lawyers in another case, court papers say.

Bank of America is reportedly settling the case with Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System and the Hollywood
(Florida) Police Officers' Retirement System for $20 million, The
New York Times reported.

But lawyers for plaintiffs in a similar case in Delaware are
saying the damages go as high as $5 billion.  The New York case,
essentially, is being settled safely, within the boundaries of
BofA's insurance policies.

The settlement would also eliminate any settlement in the Delaware
case, the Times said.

The lawsuits involve Bank of America's purchase of Merrill Lynch
during the height of the financial crisis.

The case has already gone through federal courts.  The Securities
and Exchange Commission reached a settlement of $33 million on the
matter, which federal Judge Jed Rakoff refused to sign.

Judge Rakoff challenged that settlement saying it was a slap on
the wrist and would end up punishing shareholders, rather than
those who made the decision to withhold information that should
have been made available to shareholders when BofA bought Merrill
Lynch.

That would have made the shareholders victims twice, Judge Rakoff
said at the time.

Judge Rakoff later agreed to a settlement of $150 million in that
case.

In the current challenge of the New York settlement, court papers
say lawyers for the pension funds have done little to make their
case, deposing only two of BofA's 16 board members.

In Delaware, lawyers have filed 48 depositions, having deposed all
16 of the bank's directors, the Times reported.


BOONE COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Local Sales Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Barker, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that a
lawsuit by an Adair County man that names Boone County as a
defendant is seeking a refund of local sales taxes charged on
motor vehicles purchased outside the state.

Columbia attorney Danieal Miller filed the suit in Cole County on
March 1 on behalf of Charles Cooper, and he is asking the court to
certify it as a class-action lawsuit so other Missouri residents
who have paid local sales taxes after registering a vehicle
purchased outside Missouri can get their money back.

The suit comes after a January Missouri Supreme Court decision,
Street v. Director of Revenue, found that the Missouri Department
of Revenue has been erroneously collecting local sales taxes on
some motor vehicles purchased outside the state.  Although it is
unknown what the potential loss of revenue could be, absent those
collections, the suit highlights how some Missouri counties could
lose out on additional revenue without imposing a local use tax.

In the state Supreme Court case, Craig Street of Greene County
sued the Missouri Department of Revenue and argued that he had
been illegally charged local sales taxes when he registered a
boat, motor and trailer purchased in Maryland.

The revenue department collects local sales taxes for counties and
cities in Missouri when consumers register vehicles and boats with
the state.  It also has collected local sales taxes when purchases
were made across state lines.

The state Supreme Court, though, said Missouri's sales tax is
limited to purchases within the state's borders, despite a
provision of the state's sales tax law that says motor vehicle
sales are "to be deemed consummated at the address of the owner."

Unless a local government has a local use tax, which allows it to
collect sales taxes on goods purchased outside its borders but
used within it, the entity no longer could receive local sales
taxes on motor vehicle registrations.

In Missouri, more than 30 counties have a local use tax, but
Columbia and Boone County don't, and neither do some of the
state's other largest counties.  Those counties -- St. Louis,
Jackson and Greene -- also are named in Miller's suit.

The Street ruling became effective March 21, and the Department of
Revenue no longer remits sales taxes on vehicles purchased out-of-
state to counties without a use tax.  The state, however, has a
use tax, so it can continue collecting on out-of-state purchases.

A local use tax has been under discussion a little more in recent
months as both Congress and some state legislators discuss a
regime that could impose the same sales taxes on Internet sales as
on physical retail sales.  Some business groups and congressional
lawmakers have worked to hash out a set of similar practices for
states, known as the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, which would
standardize local sales tax collections to make it easier for
online retailers to remit local sales taxes.

Some Missouri lawmakers have pushed to sign onto the agreement,
but in order for Boone County and Columbia to collect their share
of revenue, they would have to adopt a use tax.  Voters rejected a
local use tax in Boone County in 1996 and in Columbia in 1996 and
1998.

Mr. Miller's lawsuit doesn't worry Boone County Counselor C.J.
Dykhouse much, but Mr. Dykhouse said it does illustrate a tax
policy flaw that could create an incentive for people to purchase
vehicles outside the state.  "The fix would be to have a local use
tax that complements the local sales tax," he said. "It's to our
advantage that our car dealerships are not disadvantaged relative
to other car dealerships across state lines."

Boone County and the other parties named as defendants, including
the Department of Revenue, argue in their responses to Miller's
petition that his client has not sought a sales tax refund through
an administrative appeal.  The counties also argued that because
they only passively receive sales tax remittances from the
Department of Revenue and do not collect it themselves, they are
not proper parties to the suit.  Mr. Miller did not return phone
calls seeking comment.

"That's the whole problem with this lawsuit," Mr. Dykhouse said.
"The county does not collect sales taxes.  The county receives
sales taxes collected by the Department of Revenue."


BRASKEM SA: Appeals in Suits Over Work Breaks Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuits commenced by the Union of
Workers over work breaks remain pending, according to Braskem
S.A.'s April 10, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Union of Workers in the
Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in Triunfo (State of Rio
Grande do Sul) filed class actions claiming the payment of
overtime referring to work breaks and integration into base salary
of the remunerated weekly day-off amounting to R$255,048,000.

The proper defenses were presented for these actions and the
Company, based on the opinion of the external legal advisors, does
not expect losses arising from the outcome of these proceedings.
The chances of loss are considered possible.

The claims are in the fact finding and appeals phase and they are
expected to be granted a final and unappealable decision in the
last quarter of 2013.

The Company says there are judicial deposits related to these
claims.


BRASKEM SA: Expects "Union of Workers" Suits to Be Judged by 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. disclosed in its April 10, 2012, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011, that the class action lawsuits commenced
by the Union of Workers are expected to be judged by 2013.

In the second quarter of 2005, the Union of Workers in the
Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in Triunfo (State of Rio
Grande do Sul) lodged a number of class actions claiming overtime
payment.  For part of these actions, for which the claims amount
to R$86,479,000, the chances of a loss are considered possible.
For the remaining actions in progress, for which the claims amount
of R$641,854,000, the chances of a loss are considered remote.

All actions in progress are with the Superior Labor Court and
Management expects them to be judged by 2013.

One of these actions was awarded a final and unappealable decision
in favor of the Company.

The Company says there are judicial deposits related to these
claims.


CAMTEK LTD: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of "Lapiner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camtek Ltd. disclosed in its according to the Company's April 9,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that Yuval
Lapiner did not appeal the dismissal of his purported class action
complaint.

On March 7, 2008, a purported Class Action Complaint ("CAC"),
Yuval Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd. et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
November 22, 2005, and December 20, 2006.  Mr. Lapiner filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 2, 2009,
naming the Company and certain of its directors and officers as
defendants.  It alleged that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under, and breached fiduciary duties by making false and
misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and press
releases.  The plaintiff seeked unspecified compensatory damages
against the defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC, as amended, on February
17, 2009, and the Court granted this motion on June 2, 2009.
However, the Court gave plaintiff leave to amend his complaint,
which he did when he filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SAC") on July 10, 2009.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the SAC and the court granted this motion on
February 2, 2011.  The Court, however, gave plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint which he did when he filed a Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC") on April 1, 2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss
the TAC and on August 31, 2011, the Court granted Camtek its third
motion to dismiss and done so this time without giving the
plaintiff leave to amend.  Plaintiff did not appeal the court's
judgment.


CHASE HOME: Protection of Class List Upheld in "Pittman" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action complaint entitled Javon Pittman v. Chase Home
Financing, LLC, Case No. 97321, the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed a trial court order
incorporating a version proposed by the defendant of a certain
paragraph 4D of a class action settlement.

A 2005 lawsuit alleges that Chase routinely failed to record
notice, when its customers had satisfied their mortgages, within
90 days as required by Ohio law.  The parties reached a class-wide
settlement in 2009.  Paragraph 4D of the class settlement deals
specifically with the addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
addresses of those contained in the class provided by Chase to
Pittman.  Chase proposed a version of paragraph 4D of the class
settlement, in which Pittman would be prohibited from using the
class list information to contact the members regarding any future
litigation against Chase, pursuant to a 2007 protective order.  In
August 2011, the trial court ordered the parties to abide by
Chase's version of the proposal.

The Appellate Court found that the trial court's decision to
protect the class list from future solicitation was well within
its sound discretion.

A copy of the Apellate Court's March 15, 2012, Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/thWsEufrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Mr. Pittman are:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Tel No: (440) 525-2763
                  (216) 206-6414
          Fax No: (440) 352-3469
                  (216) 861-1403
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

               -- and --

          Brian Ruschel, Esq.
          925 Euclid Avenue, Ste. 660
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1405
          Tel No: (216) 621-3370

Counsel for Chase Home are:

          William H. Falin, Esq.
          Seamus J. McMahon, Esq.
          MOSCARINO & TREU, LLP
          The Hanna Bldg., Ste. 630
          1422 Euclid Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Tel No: (216) 621-1000
          Fax No: (216) 622-1556
          E-mail: wfalin@mosctreu.com

               -- and --

          Danielle J. Szukala, Esq.
          Leann P. Pope, Esq.
          BURKE, WARREN, MACKAY & SERRITELLA, P.C.
          300 North Wabash Avenue, 22/F
          Chicago, IL 60611-3607
          Tel No: (312) 840-7070 (for Szukala)
                  (312) 840-7013 (for Pope)
          E-mail: dszukala@burkelaw.com
                  lpope@burkelaw.com


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Class Suits in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. disclosed in its
April 10, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, that it is facing two purported class action
lawsuits in North Carolina.

On April 4, 2012, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina against Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. and
certain of its executive officers: McIntyre v. Chelsea
Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-213; and
Albstein v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd. et al., Case No.
3:12-cv-215.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making various statements related to Chelsea's development of
Northera(TM) (droxidopa) for the treatment of symptomatic
neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH) and the likelihood of FDA
approval.  The class period alleged in the McIntyre complaint runs
from November 3, 2008, and March 28, 2012, and the class period
alleged in the Albstein complaint is between June 9, 2011, and
February 17, 2012.  The complaints seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company says additional similar lawsuits might be filed.
Chelsea and its officers believe all of the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
themselves against these claims.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Chesapeake
Energy stock sank after Reuters reported last week that the
company had loaned more than $1 billion to its CEO Aubrey
McClendon, in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Deborah G. Mallow IRA SEP Investment
Plan v. McClendon, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00436 (W.D. Okla.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenyatta R. Bethea, Esq.
          HOLLOWAY, BETHEA & OSENBAUGH, PLLC
          3035 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 102N
          Oklahoma City, OK 73116
          Telephone: (405) 694-4469
          E-mail: kbethea@hbolaw.com

               - and -

          John Halebian, Esq.
          LOVELL STUART HALEBIAN LLP
          317 Madison Avenue
          21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 500-5010
          E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


CHINA NATURAL: Gainey & McKeena, Egleston File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm on April 20 disclosed
that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an investor in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China Natural
Gas, Inc. between March 10, 2010 and September 21, 2011,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 20, 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, Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at
egleston@gme-law.com

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 alleges that, during the Class Period, as revealed
through the restatements of the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end
financial statements, and the Company's 2010 and 2011 interim
financial statements, Frazer Frost, LLP (now known as Frost, PLLC)
and Friedman, LLP (the auditors of the Company's financial
statements during the Class Period) materially misstated the
Company's financial position and materially misstated facts
regarding related party and other transactions.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
China Natural common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm.


CHINA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit captioned Vandevelde v. China
Natural Gas, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  That action, captioned
Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-728,
was filed on August 26, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.  The plaintiff in Vandevelde asserts
that the Company, Qinan Ji, Zhiqiang Wang, Donald Yang, David She,
Carl Yeung and Lawrence Leighton violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, when
the Company failed to disclose and properly account for a loan in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.  The complaint alleges that the
Pledge to secure the Loan violated the Indenture for the Senior
Notes and the warrant agreement relating to the warrants issued to
Abax Lotus Ltd., giving the holder of those notes and warrants the
right to declare a default under the Indenture.  The complaint
further alleges that, on August 20, 2010, the Company amended its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009,
and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010, to disclose the Loan and restate its financial statements in
light of the note and warrant holder's right to declare a default
under the Indenture, and that the announcement of this news caused
the price of the Company's stock to drop by twenty percent.  The
plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount to recover the
losses purportedly suffered by the putative class as a result of
that decline.  The complaint also asserts claims against the
individual defendants as controlling persons of the Company for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 12, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing Robert
Skeway, an individual investor, as lead plaintiff and approving
his selection of lead counsel.  Lead plaintiff and Raimundo Jo-
Fung, another individual investor, who together seek to represent
a class of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common
stock between March 10, 2010, and September 21, 2011, filed an
amended complaint on October 11, 2011.  On December 12, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff's counsel filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012.  The Company
had until April 16, 2012, to file its reply brief with the court.


CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano),
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women
in hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.  On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-
American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales
representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were
consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The consolidated case
was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v.
Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).  On March 31, 2009, the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to
all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits.

Following denial of class certification, the Court permitted the
individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately.
In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining claims of
the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case after the
denial of class certification.  On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha
Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the
Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's
summary judgment order in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.  The Appellate Court has made no determination
regarding the merits of Davis' appeal.  In September 2010, the
Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all
claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent.
The EEOC has appealed the District Court's summary judgment
decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Court of Appeals has not yet
ruled on the EEOC's appeal.

The Company says the litigation, if decided or settled adversely
to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in
liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition or
consolidated results of operation and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis.  Any estimated liability relating
to these proceedings is not determinable at this time.  Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 29, 2012.


COCHLEAR LIMITED: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Cochlear Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, a father claims Cochlear Limited's ear
implants failed inside his young daughter one month before the FDA
recalled them for a manufacturing defect.

Wyly Wade sued Cochlear Limited, of Australia, for its "Nucleus
CI500 range of cochlear implant medical devices," which were
recalled in September 2011.

"Cochlear holds itself out as 'The leading global hearing
solutions company,'" Mr. Wade says in the complaint.

A cochlear implant is a surgically implanted medical device that
provides deaf people with a sense of sound by processing sound
into electrical impulses that are sent to the brain.

Mr. Wade says his daughter, K.W., was deaf in both ears.

"As a toddler, K.W. was medically evaluated for cochlear implants
and determined to be an excellent candidate to receive cochlear
implants," the complaint states.

In June 2011, she was fitted with Cochlear Limited's implants in
both ears.  By September 2011, both of K.W.'s implants had failed
and had to be surgically removed.

"On or about September 14, 2011, the Australian government issued
an urgent medical device recall and hazard alert in connection
with the recalled devices," the complaint states.

"The stated reason for the Australian governmental recall was that
it followed a recent increase in the number of failures of CI512
cochlear implants in the Cochlear Nucleus CI500 range.  According
to the recall, the information available to the Australian
government's Therapeutic Goods Administration was that less than
one percent of the recalled implants had failed."

In October 2011, the FDA issued a recall for the Cochlear Nucleus
CI512 Implant: "According to the FDA's recall, the reason for the
recall was that the recalled devices may shut down and cease to
function."

In December 2011, Cochlear Limited's CEO Chris Roberts released a
letter, stating: "Variations in the brazing process have resulted
in a limited number of implants being more susceptible to
developing microcracks in the braze joint during subsequent
manufacturing steps.  These microcracks allow water molecules to
enter the implant resulting in the malfunction of specific
electronic components," the complaint states, quoting the letter.

In a follow-up letter, Mr. Roberts said that "as of January 31,
2012, the overall proportion of Nucleus CI500 series devices that
has been reported as failed is 2.4 percent of registered devices
globally," according to the complaint.

The brazing process connects the external components of the
cochlear implant with its internal electrical components, which
must be waterproof.

Mr. Wade claims that "microcracks in the braze joints of K.W.'s
cochlear implants allowed water molecules to enter each of K.W.'s
cochlear implants and cause a malfunction of certain electronic
components contained in each of K.W.'s cochlear implants."

He seeks class damages for three forms of strict product
liability: defective manufacturing, design defect, and defect due
to nonconformance with representations.  He also seeks damages for
failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty,
misrepresentation, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment, and
medical monitoring for class members.

At least 25,516 recalled cochlear implants have been implanted,
according to the complaint. A 2.4 percent failure rate would
produce 612 defective implants.

A copy of the Complaint in Wade v. Cochlear Limited, Case No. 12-
cv-02877 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/Cochlear.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Morgan, Esq.
          SCOTT A. MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          217 N. Jefferson, Suite 602
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 327-3386
          E-mail: smorgan@smorgan-law.com

               - and -

          John Sawin, Esq.
          SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
          217 N. Jefferson, Suite 602
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 853-2490
          E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com


CONSECO LIFE: Enters Into Tentative Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. on April 20 disclosed that its
subsidiary, Conseco Life Insurance Company, has reached a
tentative settlement in the Nicholas putative class action
litigation, which involves changes implemented in late 2011 to
some non-guaranteed elements in certain universal life policies
sold by Conseco Life prior to its acquisition by CNO's
predecessor.  After a hearing held on April 19, 2012 the judge in
the Nicholas litigation case took under advisement Conseco Life's
requests for (i) the designation of a nationwide class for the
purpose of approving the tentative settlement and (ii) an
injunction to stay any other litigation involving the cost of
insurance increase implemented by Conseco Life in November 2011 on
the Valulife and Valuterm policies that are at issue in the
Nicholas litigation.  If the court approves the designation of a
class for purposes of settlement, final approval of the settlement
would be subject to a court fairness hearing after notice to the
inforce and former policyholders covered by the settlement and
other conditions.  In connection with the tentative settlement,
CNO expects to record a pre-tax charge of approximately $20
million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.  The tentative settlement is expected to reduce
CNO's consolidated risk-based capital ratio by approximately six
percentage points.


DAIRY PROCESSORS: May 1 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that dairy farmers in the state's
Appalachian and Southeast regions may be eligible to share in a
$145 million settlement reached in a class-action settlement.

The class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Greenville,
Tenn., accused dairy processors of price fixing and underpayments
to dairy farmers in Georgia and 11 other states.

Those who are dairy farmers or were as far back as 2011, have
until May 1 to file a claim.  Mark Ellis of the Settlement
Recovery Group, LLC, said farmers have a chance to receive an
estimated $13,000 each.  State agricultural officials say there
are 770 dairy farmers still producing milk in east and northeast
Georgia.


DALLAS, TX: ICE Faces Class Action Over Ankle Monitors
------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, "noncitizen Americans" say the Dallas Field Office
of Immigration Customs and Enforcement and a private "case
management" contractor violate civil rights by putting ankle
bracelet monitors on people in immigration proceedings.

Six named plaintiffs sued three top officials of ICE's Dallas
Field Office, and BI, Inc., which "develops, implements and
coordinated case management and individual service plans under a
contract with ICE," according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Angel Hernandez challenges the practice of putting
ankle monitors on "noncitizen Americans" who are released on their
own recognizance while immigration proceedings are pending against
them.

"The problem is that there is no consistency, or category that is
currently used to guide ICE in deciding when to use these
devices," the complaint states.  "They are humiliating to wear,
require a two to three hour a day charge, and are a clear
restraint on liberty against individuals whose rights have already
been adjudicated."

The 37-page complaint defines noncitizen Americans as people who
have been detained or processed by ICE's Dallas Field Office who
have been released on their own recognizance, have been in the
country for at least 5 years, have no criminal record, are not a
flight risk, are no threat to society, have strong ties to the
community and have family who depend on them.

"The use of ankle monitors has become a way to incarcerate
petitioners without due process of law in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," the complaint states.  "The
use of the monitors on qualified NCAs [noncitizen Americans] is
also cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment."

The class claims the practice deprives them of substantive and
procedural due process guarantees under the 14th Amendment and
liberty interests under the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

They say the agency's resources would be better used on aliens
subject to mandatory detention by law.

"Field office directors should not expend detention resources on
aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or
mental illness, or who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or
nursing, or demonstrate that they are primary caretakers for
children or an infirmed person, or whose detention is otherwise
not in the public interest," the complaint states.  "To detain
aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory
detention, ICE officers or special agents must obtain approval
from the field office director."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the
Administrative Procedures Act.  They are represented by Arturo
Rodriguez with the Isenberg Center for Immigration Equality in
Dallas.

High-ranking field and regional officers in ICE have tremendous
discretion: they may raise or cancel bonds, raise bonds even after
they are paid, determine the customary bond for a region by fiat,
and determine and change policies on detention.  Thus,
undocumented immigrants detained in one region may all be thrown
in jail to await proceedings, while those arrested down the road
may be released on their own recognizance, with orders to appear
in court at a time uncertain.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez, et al. v. Weber, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01191 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/Anklets.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arturo Rodriguez, III, Esq.
          ISENBERG CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION EQUALITY
          400 S. Zang Boulevard, Suite 1220
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 948-0500


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suit for $49 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Financial Group, Inc. announced in its April 9, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
Delphi, Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. (Tokio Marine) and the other
named defendants have agreed to settle for $49 million In re
Delphi Financial Group Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 7144-VCG, the consolidated action brought in connection with
the merger of Delphi and a subsidiary of Tokio Marine.

If the settlement is finalized and approved, Delphi's Class A
stockholders and option holders as of the effective time of the
merger, other than the defendants to the consolidated action and
their affiliates, will receive their pro rata portion of a payment
equal to $49 million less plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses,
which have not yet been determined. The payment will be made after
and subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  A hearing to consider the
settlement is expected to occur subsequent to the closing of the
merger.  The amount of plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses will
be determined at or after the time the Court of Chancery approves
the settlement agreement.

The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, definitive
documentation, completion of the merger and approval by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  In the event the court does
not approve the settlement or the other conditions are not
satisfied, the Delphi defendants will continue to vigorously
defend all claims.

The payment is separate and distinct from the merger consideration
payable to Delphi's Class A stockholders.  Under the terms of the
previously announced merger agreement with Tokio Marine and TM
Investment (Delaware) Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokio
Marine, Class A stockholders will receive $43.875 per Class A
share.  In addition, Class A stockholders will receive $1.00 in
cash per Class A share pursuant to a one-time special dividend
from Delphi for each share of Class A stock they own.

Delphi also announced that the merger has been approved by the
insurance regulators of the states of Illinois, Missouri, New York
and Texas and the Cayman Islands and that the applicable waiting
period under the competition laws of Hawaii has expired.  The
closing of the merger remains subject to approval by the Financial
Services Agency of Japan and the satisfaction of other customary
closing conditions.  The transaction is expected to close in the
second quarter of 2012.

                     About Delphi Financial

Delphi Financial Group, Inc. is a financial services company
focused on specialty insurance and insurance-related businesses.
Delphi is a leader in managing all aspects of employee absence to
enhance the productivity of its clients and provides the related
group insurance coverages: long-term and short-term disability,
life, excess workers' compensation for self-insured employers,
large casualty programs including large deductible workers'
compensation, travel accident, dental and limited benefit health
insurance.  Delphi's asset accumulation business emphasizes
individual annuity products.  Delphi's common stock is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DFG and its corporate
website address is http://www.delphifin.com/


DISCOVER CARD: DFS Faces TCPA-Violation Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services is facing a class action lawsuit in
California, according to Discover Card Execution Note Trust's
April 9, 2012, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March
1, 2012, to March 31, 2012.

On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Andrew Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC
and Discover Bank).  The plaintiff alleges that Discover contacted
him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their
cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA").  Plaintiff
seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful
violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each
violation ($1,500 for willful violations).

Discover Bank says it is not in a position at this time to assess
the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this
matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiff.


EME HOMER: Court Dismissed Class Claims vs. Parent in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed in March 2012 all claims asserted in a
purported class action lawsuit against the parent of EME Homer
City Generation L.P., according to the Company's March 28, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In May 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, naming a large number of defendants,
including Homer City's parent company, Edison Mission Energy
("EME").  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities
resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse
gases that have contributed to climate change and sea level rise,
which in turn are alleged to have increased the destructive force
of Hurricane Katrina.  The lawsuit alleged causes of action for
negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  The claims in this
lawsuit were nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were
raised against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit
that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district
court where the current case has been filed.

In March 2012, the United States District Court dismissed all of
the plaintiffs' claims.  Homer City does not know whether the
plaintiffs will appeal this ruling.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Green Bankshares, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 18, 2010, a shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled Bill Burgraff v. Green
Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:10-cv-00253) against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
in Greeneville, Tennessee, on behalf of all persons that acquired
shares of Company common stock between January 19, 2010, and
November 9, 2010.  On January 18, 2011, a separate shareholder of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Brian
Molnar v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No.
2:11-cv-00014) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the same court on behalf of all persons that
acquired shares of Company common stock between January 19, 2010,
and October 20, 2010.

The lawsuits were filed following, and relate to the drop in value
of the Company's common stock price after, the Company announced
its third quarter performance results on October 20, 2010.  The
plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly
overvaluing collateral of certain loans; failing to timely take
impairment charges of these certain loans; failing to properly
account for loan charge-offs; lacking adequate internal and
financial controls; and providing false and misleading financial
results.  The plaintiffs have asserted federal securities laws
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs have also
asserted control person liability claims against the individual
defendants named in the complaints pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The two cases were consolidated on February 4, 2011.  On
February 11, 2011, the Court appointed movant Jeffrey Blomgren as
lead plaintiff.  On May 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended
and consolidated complaint alleging a class period of January 19,
2010, to November 9, 2010.  On July 11, 2011, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The Company and the individual defendants collectively intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these allegations.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Two Class Suits Over CBF Transaction Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the four class action lawsuits arising from Green
Bankshares, Inc.'s entry into an investment agreement with Capital
Bank Financial Corp. were resolved in February 2012, according to
the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Prior to September 7, 2011, Green Bankshares conducted its
business primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiary, GreenBank.
On September 7, 2011 (the "Merger Date"), the Bank merged (the
"Bank Merger") with and into Capital Bank, National Association
("Capital Bank, NA"), a subsidiary of the Company's majority
shareholder, Capital Bank Financial Corp. ("CBF"), in an all-stock
transaction, with Capital Bank, NA as the surviving entity.  Green
Bankshares' approximately 34% ownership interest in Capital Bank,
NA is recorded as an equity-method investment in that entity.

On May 12, 2011, a stockholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit (styled Betty Smith v. Green Bankshares,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-625-III, Davidson County, Tennessee,
Chancery Court) against the Company, GreenBank, the Company Board
and CBF on behalf of all persons holding common stock of the
Company.  This lawsuit was filed following the Company's public
announcement on May 5, 2011, of its entering into an investment
agreement with CBF and relates to the investment in the Company by
CBF.  The complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by accepting a sale
price for the shares to be sold to the Company that was unfair to
stockholders of the Company.  The complaint also alleges that CBF,
the Company and GreenBank aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction and/or rescission of the
Green Bankshares investment and fees and expenses in an
unspecified amount.

On May 25 and June 16, 2011, two other stockholders of the Company
filed similar putative class action lawsuits (styled Mark
McClinton v. Green Bankshares, Inc,. et al., Case No. 11-CV-284kt,
Greene County Circuit Court, Greeneville, Tennessee and Thomas
Cook v. Green Bankshares, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00176,
Greenville Division, E.D. Tenn., respectively) against the
Company, the Company Board and CBF on behalf of all persons
holding common stock of the Company.  The complaints similarly
allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by agreeing to sell shares to the Company at
a price unfair to its stockholders.  The complaints also allege
that CBF and the Company aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty.  In addition, the Cook complaint further alleges
that the proxy statement filed with the SEC by the Company in
connection with the transaction was issued with material omissions
and misleading statements.  Both claims seek an injunction and/or
rescission of the CBF Investment and fees and expenses in an
unspecified amount.

On July 6, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
lawsuit (styled Barbara N. Ballard v. Stephen M. Rownd, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00201, E.D. Tenn.) against Green
Bankshares, its Board of Directors and CBF asserting an individual
claim that alleges that the individual defendants violated the
securities laws by issuing a preliminary proxy statement that
contains alleged material misstatements and omissions.  The
complaint also alleges a class action claim on behalf of all
persons holding the Green Bankshares common stock against the
individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty based on these
same alleged material misstatements and omissions.  The complaint
also alleges that Green Bankshares and CBF aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction and/or
rescission of the CBF Investment and fees and expenses in an
unspecified amount.

On July 26, 2011, the parties to the class action lawsuits
commenced in 2011 reached an agreement in principle to resolve
these lawsuits on the basis of the inclusion of certain additional
disclosures regarding the CBF Investment proxy statement filed
with the SEC on the same date.  The proposed settlement is subject
to, among other things, court approval.

On February 3, 2012, the court in the Smith action entered a final
order resolving all claims and, on February 15, 2012, the Cook
action was dismissed by the court with prejudice.


GREG MORTENSON: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Book
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that regardless of whether claims are
true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups
of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because
the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his
publisher's attorney said on April 18.

Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman --
herman.jonathan@dorsey.com -- and attorneys for
Mr. Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mr. Mortenson's
charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to
dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mr. Mortenson's
bestselling books.

The lawsuit was filed after "60 Minutes" and author Jon Krakauer
published reports last year that Mr. Mortenson fabricated parts of
"Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones Into Schools," which recount his
efforts to build schools in Central Asia.

The suit claims Mr. Mortenson and the others committed fraud,
deceit and were involved in a racketeering conspiracy in
publishing lies.

Mr. Mortenson headed the conspiracy to set himself up as a false
hero so that he could sell millions of books and raise tens of
millions of dollars for his charity, the plaintiffs' attorney
Zander Blewett said.

"Mortenson obviously is the main, main liar," he said.  "He has
just drafted himself a web of deception . . . and used it to raise
$62 million."

In arguing to reject the case, neither Messrs. Herman nor
Mortenson attorney John Kauffman addressed the specific
fabrication claims.

Mr. Herman said the proper place for someone to object to the
books is in the sphere of public debate, not in a courtroom to be
prosecuted by self-appointed "truth police." "The First Amendment
permits someone who writes an autobiography to exaggerate or even
lie," Mr. Herman said.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon did not make an immediate ruling,
saying he wanted to consider the arguments further.

"Three Cups of Tea," which has sold about 4 million copies since
being published in 2006, was conceived as a way to raise money and
tell the story of his institute, founded by Mr. Mortenson in 1996.

The book and tireless promotion of the charity by Mr. Mortenson,
who appeared at more than 500 speaking engagements in four years,
resulted in tens of millions of dollars in donations.

The book recounts how Mr. Mortenson lost his way after a failed
mountaineering expedition and was nursed back to health in a
Pakistani village.  Based on the villagers' kindness and the
poverty he saw, he resolved to build a school for them.

The lawsuit -- filed by two California residents, a Montana man
and an Illinois woman who bought the books -- says that tale is
among more than two dozen alleged fabrications and accusations of
wrongdoing by Mr. Mortenson and the others.

The hearing comes less than two weeks after Mr. Mortenson and the
Montana attorney general announced a $1 million agreement to
settle claims that Mr. Mortenson mismanaged the institute and
misspent its funds.  The agreement removes Mr. Mortenson from any
financial oversight and overhauls the charity's structure, but did
not address the books' contents.

That's where the civil lawsuit comes in.

The plaintiffs are asking Judge Haddon to certify their lawsuit as
a class action that would make everybody who bought the books a
plaintiff.

They want an accounting of all the money collected form book
sales, have that money refunded to the people who bought the books
and have additional damages put into a trust for a humanitarian
organization selected by their attorneys and approved by the
court.

A First Amendment expert called the lawsuit absurd, regardless of
whether the books contain fabrications.

Mr. Mortenson did not defame or harm anyone in his books and,
barring narrow exceptions like national secrets, he can write what
he wants and does not have to justify it, said Wayne Giampietro, a
Chicago attorney and general counsel of the First Amendment
Lawyers Association.

"It is what it is: Here's a book.  If you want to buy it, buy it.
If you don't, don't," Mr. Giampietro said.

The defendants' lawyers said such a case, if it were allowed to
proceed, would damage the publishing industry and dampen free
speech because it would require prohibitively expensive fact-
checking for every book published.

In the case of Mr. Mortenson's memoir, it would be virtually
impossible to independently verify all of his experiences in
Central Asia, especially with several people cited who are now
dead, Relin attorney Sonia Montalbano said.  His story hasn't
injured anyone, so there is no need to, she said.

"No one can be damaged by someone telling his own life story," she
said.

After the "60 Minutes" and Krakauer reports last year, Penguin
promised an internal investigation into the allegation that
portions of the books were fabricated.  Mr. Blewett referenced
that investigation on April 18.  Mr. Herman declined to provide
any updates, either during or after the hearing.

"The publisher knows only what the author has told it.  That's
it," Mr. Herman said.

One of the lawyers in the case is Larry Drury, who also
represented plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against James
Frey, who admitted on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" that he lied in his
memoir "A Million Little Pieces."  That lawsuit ended in a
settlement that offered refunds to buyers of the book.

Mr. Drury and Mr. Blewett say the Mortenson and Frey cases "are
stunningly close," but Mr. Haddon said he would not consider that
case in these proceedings because it was settled without
addressing any of the issues before him now.


HOME DEPOT: Sued for Denying Suitable Seating for Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Durand, writing for The Daily Journal, reports that a
former greeter at Home Depot in East Palo Alto is suing the
building chain, claiming the company broke state labor law by not
providing him or any other worker a seat when they welcome
customers to the store.

The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of Kunaal Sharma, is
similar to previous claims in the last few years lodged against
big-box retail stores, including Home Depot, Target and 99 Cents
Only, over employees' rights to suitable seating.  The suit seeks
penalties on behalf of Mr. Sharma and other current and former
Home Depot greeters similarly denied a seat from Feb. 7, 2011 to
the present.

"There is no reason why that work can't be accomplished from a
nice ergonomically designed chair or stool with their feet up but
these companies feel the employees cannot give top-level customer
service," said attorney Matthew Righetti who filed the suit April
11 on Mr. Sharma's behalf.

Mr. Righetti has been involved in several similar suits over
seating and said this class action matter is no different in
arguing that California labor law allows a worker to sit if they
can accomplish the same work as if standing.

"The retailer is not the one to decide who gets a seat or not," he
said.

Sharma worked as a cashier and greeter at the East Palo Alto store
for seven years between October 2005 to September 2011.  Mr.
Righetti did not know if Mr. Sharma specifically asked for a chair
and was denied prior to leaving his position at Home Depot.

Either way, Mr. Righetti said a request -- along with a worker's
age and physical condition -- makes no difference when a denial
under any circumstances violates labor law which hold that all
working employees be provided "suitable seats when the nature of
the work reasonably permits the use of seats."

Mr. Righetti said Home Depot's policy is to refuse a chair to all
employees unless they can provide a medical note about their
condition and that once a limitation such as pregnancy or twisted
ankle is resolved they are again expected to stand.

Even that limited exception shows that the work can be done while
seated, Mr. Righetti said.

Home Depot corporate headquarters declined to discuss its seating
policies, citing the ongoing litigation, but spokesman Stephen
Holmes said the company plans to fight the claim.

"We disagree with the claims presented in this suit and intend to
vigorously defend our position in the proper forum," Mr. Holmes
said.

The suit is currently scheduled for a complex case status
conference June 7 followed by a case management conference
Aug. 22.

Mr. Righetti said he does not anticipate a settlement as retailers
have previously spent "tens of millions to litigate" even as
rulings supporting seating have been affirmed by appellate courts.
In November 2010, the courts overturned a lower court's decision
tossing a suit against 99 Cents Only stores after the company's
lawyers argued the wording about "suitable seating" was a
suggestion rather than law.  The appellate court called the
interpretation contrary to common sense and that ruling was later
used to affirm the seating law in a different suit against Home
Depot.


HORIZON LINES: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alaska Tradelane
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit relating to the Alaska tradelane, according to the
Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 25, 2011.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business.  On February 23, 2011, the Company
entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and on
March 22, 2011, the Court entered judgment accepting the Company's
plea agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over
five years without interest.  The Company recorded a charge of
$30.0 million during the year ended December 26, 2010, which
represented the present value of the $45.0 million in installment
payments.  On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the fine from
$45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years without
interest.  As a result, during the year ended
December 25, 2011, the Company recorded a reversal of $19.2
million of the charge originally recorded during December 26,
2010.  The first $1.0 million of the fine was paid in April 2011
and the second $1.0 million payment was made in March 2012.  The
Company must make payments of $2.0 million on or before March 24,
2013, $3.0 million on or before March 24, 2014, $4.0 million on or
before March 24, 2015, and $4.0 million on or before March 21,
2016.  The plea agreement provides that the Company will not face
additional charges relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane.  In
addition, the plea agreement provides that the Company will not
face any additional charges in connection with the Alaska trade,
and the DOJ has indicated that the Company is not a target or
subject of any Hawaii or Guam aspects of its investigation.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, thirty-
two class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of ocean
shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated
into a single multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the
District of Puerto Rico.  On June 11, 2009, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class
representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL.  Under the settlement
agreement, the Company paid $20.0 million and agreed to provide a
base-rate freeze to class members who elect such freeze in lieu of
a cash payment.

Some class members elected to opt-out of the settlement.  The
Company and attorneys representing those shippers who (i) opted
out of the Puerto Rico direct purchaser settlement and (ii)
indicated an intention to pursue an antitrust claim against the
Company relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane, entered into a
settlement agreement, dated November 23, 2011.  Pursuant to the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid $5.8 million
and has agreed to make payments of $4.0 million on each of
June 30, 2012, and December 24, 2012.

Twenty-five class action lawsuits relating to ocean shipping
services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into
a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and
Guam MDL, and the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and
amended complaint.  Subsequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint.

One class action lawsuit relating to the Alaska tradelane is
pending in the District of Alaska.  The Company and the class
plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska litigation, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the purported class
action lawsuit in Alaska.

Horizon Lines, Inc. is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The Company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
The Company also provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and trades on the OTCQB Marketplace
under symbol HRZL.


INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit vs. iSatori Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s
subsidiary remains stayed, according to the Company's April 9,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated")
and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a
merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as
of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and
iSatori (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with
iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated.

Paul Jeffrey Grube brought a class action lawsuit against three
companies, including iSatori based on the defendants' alleged
marketing, distribution, or sales of products purporting to
contain human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG") or a natural hCG
alternative.  Grube claims that the defendants engaged in
deceptive trade practices in violation of numerous state consumer
protection laws, breached express warranties, and were unjustly
enriched.  iSatori has received a letter from GNC Corp., demanding
iSatori indemnify GNC Corp. pursuant to an agreement between
iSatori and GNC Corp.  The action was stayed pending possible
consolidation with other hCG litigation.


INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Continues to Defend "Aviles" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend
a class action lawsuit brought by Jerry Aviles, according to the
Company's April 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated")
and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a
merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as
of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and
iSatori (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with
iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated.

Jerry Aviles has brought a class action complaint against iSatori
relating to its product ISA-TEST.  Aviles alleges iSatori violated
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and engaged in unfair
or deceptive business practice and false advertising in violation
of the California Business and Professions Code.


KEYSPAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Mail Fraud Verdict on A. Bosgang
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a New
York federal court ruling convicting Alvin Bosgang of mail fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 in relation to a KeySpan
Corporation class action settlement.  The district court sentenced
Mr. Bosgang to 30 days' imprisonment, three years' supervised
release, a fine of $250,000, and restitution of $1,395,694.78.

Mr. Bosgang pled guilty to submitting a false claim form to David
Berdon & Company that represented his owned stock in KeySpan in
order to receive a class action settlement from the KeySpan
Corporation Securities Litigation.

The case is captioned United States of America, Appellee v. Alvin
J. Bosgang, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 10-5212-cr, (2nd Cir.).

A copy of the Second Circuit's March 15, 2012, Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/IWGjGMfrom Leagle.com.

Vivian M. Williams, Esq., at Vivian M. Williams and Associates PC,
in New York, N.Y., represented Mr. Bosgang.

Peter A. Norling, William P. Campos, Assistant United States
Attorneys, of counsel, for Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., represented the
United States of America as Appellee.


LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement Fund in "Lane's" Suit Closed in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fund established in connection with the settlement of a class
action lawsuit initiated by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C.,
et al., was closed in June 2011, according to LookSmart, Ltd.'s
March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2008, the Company established a Settlement Fund related to a
class action lawsuit in which the Company was named as a
defendant, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc
(the "Fund").  In the second quarter of 2011, the Company
determined that all settlements related to the Fund had been paid.
The Fund was closed on June 30, 2011, and the Company recorded
$0.3 million in non-operating income related to the closure.

As previously reported, on March 14, 2005, LookSmart Ltd. was
served with the second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.  The complaint
named eleven search engines and web publishers as defendants,
including the Company, and alleged breach of contract,
restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received, and civil
conspiracy claims in connection with contracts allegedly entered
into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising.  The
named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint were Lane's Gifts
and Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card
Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a
Caulfield Investigations.

On July 26, 2006, the Court approved a class settlement among
plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain defendants who
display Google advertisements on their networks.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Wins Court Order to Prevent Asset Seizure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Anderson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that
officials of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. said
on April 20 they have won a temporary court order that prevents
$105 million of their assets from being seized to pay
policyholders who allege the company was late in adjusting their
claims after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  Richard
Robertson, Citizens chief executive officer, confirmed that 19th
Judicial District Court Judge Tim Kelly signed a temporary order
on April 19 that will keep the money in Citizens bank account a
while longer.

Citizens has battled against paying the claims for years, alleging
that Jefferson Parish District Court Judge Henry Sullivan granted
a judgment to the members of a class action, entitled Geraldine
Oubre et al. vs. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, without giving
Citizens a proper hearing and due process.

Citizens officials say they have the cash to pay the judgment, but
that paying the judgment would leave their assets diminished just
as hurricane season gets underway.

Mr. Roberston said Judge Kelly has set a hearing for April 30 on a
request to make the temporary order permanent.

Citizens' lawsuit was filed against Regions Bank, which has the
assets of the state's insurer of last resort.  Earlier last week,
Citizens also filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to have
the judgment -- which has been upheld by the Louisiana Supreme
Court -- overturned.

The original judgment against Citizens was for $92.86 million that
would have been paid to more than 18,500 policyholders in 2009.
With legal interest, the judgment has ballooned to $105 million
and is growing by about $10,000 a day.

After going through multiple appeals and winning most, the lawyers
for the Oubre class action lawsuit filed and won an order to have
the assets seized from Regions.  That will be on hold until the
Baton Rouge litigation is over.  Both parties can appeal that
ruling also.

Fred Herman, one of the attorneys in the Oubre case, said Citizens
did not properly file the lawsuit against its banker and did not
notify attorneys in the class action as they should have.

"This is something like I have never seen in 42 years of
practice," said Wiley Beevers, another New Orleans lawyer
representing the plaintiffs.

Mr. Herman said that the plaintiffs lawyers will now ask Judge
Kelly to let them intervene in the Baton Rouge case and ask him to
cancel the temporary restraining order he issued on April 19.

There have been futile attempts in the last few years to settle
the lawsuit, but the parties have not come to terms.

Messrs. Beevers, Herman and other lawyers in the case were called
to Baton Rouge on April 20 for what they thought would be a
negotiating session with the Citizens board in an executive
session.

The board went behind closed doors from more than an hour, but the
lawyers were not involved and cooled their heels in the Insurance
Department Building lobby.

"We were told this was going to be a negotiating session," by some
board members who asked us to show up, Mr. Herman said.

Mr. Robertson said that the attorneys were called to Baton Rouge
"in case of a negotiating session," but one never materialized.

Mr. Beevers called the latest lawsuit "a sneaky, backdoor move" to
delay the payment to the policyholders.  "This is just another
obstacle to delay the inevitable court-ordered payment to the
Oubre class; eventually, we will prevail," he said.

                       Meeting Cancelled

Chad Hemenway, of PropertyCasualty360.Com, reports that a
scheduled meeting on April 20 between Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. and attorneys for more than 18,500 policyholders
owed about $105 million from the last-resort insurer was abruptly
canceled.

According to class-action plaintiffs' attorneys, Citizens
scheduled the meeting to attempt to resolve the long, drawn-out
case and gave no explanation for canceling.

"This is just another obstacle to delay the inevitable court-
ordered payment to the class," says Mr. Beevers.

Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court lifted a stay on the
$105 million judgment against Citizens in favor of the class of
policyholders who say Citizens did not act quickly enough to
adjust claims following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

On April 19, Citizens filed a temporary restraining order against
its bank to prevent it from releasing its funds to the
policyholders.

The state-run insurer filed a request last week for the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear the case.

Attempts to reach Louisiana Citizens were not immediately
successful.

Mr. Beevers says he'll file a motion to vacate the temporary
restraining order placed on Citizens' bank.

"Eventually, we will prevail," he says.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say Citizens signed and delivered the order
against its bank at the home of a judge late April 19 and without
legal notice to the class of policyholders, which is required.

"This is just another bizarre move that will prove to be as ill-
fated as a number of their previous tactics in the unseemly legal
process engaged in by Citizens," Mr. Beevers says.

Last December, the state high court overruled a state appeals
court and reinstated the award to policyholders, given by the
district court in March 2009.

Citizens has tried every avenue in an attempt to delay or stop the
judgment against it.  Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon called
the award to policyholders a "potentially devastating event"
because it puts the last-resort insurer of coastal properties at a
disadvantage heading into the hurricane season this year.

After the judgment was reinstated, Citizens tried to work out a
settlement for less money to the policyholders.  The insurer also
tried to file court papers to delay payment to policyholders while
it appealed the state Supreme Court's ruling.  The insurer was
denied a stay by the state high court on Jan. 27.


MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Likely to Include More Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Schneider, writing for The Capital Times, reports that a
lawyer representing Madison-Kipp Corp. neighbors who are suing the
east-side metal parts fabricator over chemical contamination, says
that the class action lawsuit may end up including damages from
additional contaminants that the state has just revealed are on
the factory site.

"If it turns out PCBs were improperly disposed of, that will be
part of our lawsuit," attorney Shawn Collins told The Capital
Times.  "The important thing for the residents is that there be
thorough and immediate testing.  They need to find out how big the
problem is and whether they are also threatened by PCBs in
addition to other chemicals."

The Department of Natural Resources on April 19 released to the
public its harshly worded letter to Kipp officials demanding a
prompt investigation and cleanup of PCB contamination on its
property.  PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are a group of
chemical compounds once widely used as industrial coolants that
have been linked to cancer and neurological problems.

Days earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb granted the
neighbors' petition to bring a class action against Kipp, saying
it "is superior to other methods for resolution of core issues:
whether or not and to what extent defendant Madison-Kipp caused
contamination in the area in question."

Owners of seven properties neighboring the Kipp plant filed a
lawsuit last fall in federal court seeking money and chemical
cleanup, months after they learned that soil vapors containing
tetrachloroethylene, also known as PCE, had migrated from Kipp
property onto theirs.  They say the contamination has gutted their
property values.  The DNR has been overseeing PCE cleanup at the
site since 1994.

Early this year, neighbors sought to convert their lawsuit to a
class action open to the owners and residents of 34 properties on
South Marquette Street and Waubesa Street that border the Kipp
property.  That's what Judge Crabb ordered last week.

As he has in the past, Mr. Collins on April 20 criticized the DNR
for its oversight of chemical cleanup on the Kipp site.  "It's
absolutely unforgiveable that 20 years into this problem we're
just now learning about a new and dangerous chemical.  There had
better not be any delay in comprehensive testing to see how big of
a PCB problem these families have.  The DNR wrote a very blunt
letter to Madison-Kipp, but there has to be more than letter-
writing going on here.  We hope DNR understands that."

Neighbors have complained, too, about what they see as DNR's
lackadaisical approach to enforcing cleanup laws.  "They have no
faith in the DNR," Mr. Collins says.

DNR went public with its enforcement action on the PCBs after,
state officials say, Kipp didn't respond to its questions about
discovery of the contamination for more than two weeks.  "The
Department cannot emphasize enough the serious nature of this
situation," reads the letter to Kipp hand-delivered on April 19.
Kipp officials say they are cooperating with the DNR on an
investigation of PCBs on the site, just as they have in testing
and cleanup of PCE.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of March 1 Under Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc. and other dynamic
random-access memory (DRAM) suppliers in various federal and state
courts in the United States of America and in Puerto Rico on
behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase
DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April
1999 through at least June 2002.  The complaints seek joint and
several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and
attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases have been removed to
federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.  In July 2006, the Attorneys General for
approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the
Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer
protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages,
trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief.  On October 3,
2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in
California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local
California government entities, alleging, among other things,
violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million
in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period.

As of March 1, 2012, the Company has paid $45 million into an
escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement,
according to the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 1, 2012.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Canadian Price-Fixing Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products have been filed
against Micron Technology, Inc. in Quebec, Ontario, and British
Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers,
asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other
common law claims.  The claims were initiated between December
2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec).  The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the
British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of
those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court
of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of
Appeal also reversed the denial of class certification and
remanded the cases for further proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 1, 2012.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of these
matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss.
The Company adds that the final resolution of these alleged
violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability
and could have a material adverse effect on its business, results
of operations or financial condition.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Concussion Suit Lead Plaintiff Dies
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCauley, writing for SBNation.com, reports that Ray
Easterling, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action
concussion lawsuits filed by former players against the NFL, has
committed suicide.  Mr. Easterling, who was 62 years old, was
discovered by his wife in his home after passing away from a self-
inflicted gunshot wound.

Mr. Easterling was a starting safety for the Atlanta Falcons from
1974-1977 and reportedly played through multiple concussions
during his playing career.  He has suffered with depression and
insomnia since retiring from the game and was diagnosed with
dementia in 2011.  The quotes from his wife, Mary Ann Easterling,
regarding his condition are truly frightening.

"He had been feeling more and more pain.  He felt like his brain
was falling off.  He was losing control.  He couldn't remember
things from five minutes ago.  It was frightening, especially
somebody who had all the plays memorized as a player when he
stepped on the field," Mrs. Easterling said.

Mr. Easterling is one of thousands of players who have filed
lawsuits against the NFL for alleged negligence regarding
concussions to players.  He's also one of an alarming number of
former players who have taken their own lives after their playing
careers had passed, the most well-known recent case before him
being Dave Duerson.  Undoubtedly, this tragedy will have some
effect on those lawsuits and further discussions regarding the
long-term effects of concussions.


NEW ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
New Energy Systems Group is facing two securities class action
lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's April 2, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2012, two separate securities class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The complaints allege that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to
state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements
misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance,
business prospects, and financial condition, and that the
defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or
corrected, during a putative class period between
April 15, 2010, and November 14, 2011.  The complaints seek, among
other relief, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

One of the lawsuits was filed on February 28, 2012, against the
Company and Fushun Li, Nian Chen, Junfeng Chen, Weihe Yu, who
served as officers and directors of the Company between April 15,
2010, and November 14, 2011.  In the complaint, the plaintiff
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, in connection with purported misrepresentations
contained in the Company's public filings and press releases.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company
believes the complaint has no merit and intends to vigorously
oppose the lawsuit.

The Company believes it is likely that a consolidated amended
complaint will be filed after the Court determines the Lead
Plaintiff and lead counsel for the litigation.  The Company has
not yet responded to the complaint, but the Company believes that
the complaints have no merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.  While certain legal defense costs may be later
reimbursed by the Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable
estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related
legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of April 2,
2012.


PUBLIX: Managers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Publix in federal court
in Panama City, Florida, by four department managers asserting
they were improperly paid overtime. (Castoro-Harrigan, et. al v.
Publix, United States District Court, Northern District of
Florida, Case No. 5:12-cv-113) The filed complaint states Publix
failed to properly include the value of quarterly and year-end
bonuses in the calculation of the manager's overtime.  The
complaint also asserts these managers should have been paid at a
rate of "time and one-half" for their overtime hours, rather than
the "half time" fluctuating work week (or "Chinese Overtime")
method used by Publix.

Publix schedules its department managers and assistant managers to
work a tremendous amount of overtime each week, according to the
complaint.  These managers seek to represent a class of managers
in similar positions which would expand the case to cover all
current and former department managers and assistant department
managers who worked overtime in the past 3 years in Publix's 1,051
stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The suit was filed by Tallahassee, Florida attorneys Sean Culliton
-- http://seanculliton.com-- and John C. Davis --
http://johndavislaw.net


RADWARE LTD: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Radware Ltd.'s
initial public offering in 1999 and secondary offering in 2000 has
been concluded, according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2001, the Company, its Chairman Yehuda Zisapel, its
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Roy Zisapel and
its Chief Financial Officer Meir Moshe (the "Individual
Defendants") and several underwriters in the syndicates for the
Company's September 30, 1999 initial public offering and
January 24, 2000 secondary offering, were named as defendants in a
class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "district court").  The
complaint sought unspecified damages as a result of alleged
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act") against all the defendants and Section 15
of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants arising
from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in
connection with the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements
by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  An amended complaint filed
on April 19, 2002, which is now the operative complaint, added a
claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act") against the Company and a claim
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering were
false and misleading because they did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action is being coordinated with approximately
three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies before one judge in the district court.  On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and
20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims
were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") vacated a decision by the
district court granting class certification in six "focus" cases,
which are intended to serve as test cases.  Plaintiffs selected
these six cases, which does not include the Company.  On April 6,
2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by
the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the
district court to certify more narrow classes than those that were
rejected.

Prior to the Second Circuit's decision, the majority of issuers,
including the Company, had submitted a settlement agreement to the
district court for approval.  In light of the Second Circuit
opinion, the parties agreed that the settlement could not be
approved.  On June 25, 2007, the district court approved a
stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and the issuers that
terminated the proposed settlement.  On August 14, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases.  The
six focus case issuers and the underwriters named as defendants in
the focus cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints
against them on November 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases.  On March 26, 2008, the district court dismissed the
Section 11 claims of those members of the putative classes in the
focus cases who sold their securities for a price in excess of the
initial offering price and those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period.  With respect to all the other
claims, the motions to dismiss were denied. On October 10, 2008,
at the request of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was withdrawn, without prejudice.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated class actions,
including Radware, the underwriter defendants in the Radware class
action, and the plaintiffs in the Radware class action, have
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Radware.  On
October 5, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and judgment was entered on January 10, 2010.  A group
of three objectors filed a petition to the Second Circuit seeking
permission to appeal the District Court's final approval order on
the basis that the settlement class is broader than the class
previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006
order vacating the District Court's certifying classes in the
focus cases.  Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the petition.
In addition, six notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have been
filed by different groups of objectors, including the objectors
that filed the petition to appeal.  Two appeals proceeded.  One
appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.  The district court ruled
that the appellant lacked standing to appeal.  The appellant
appealed the district court decision to the Second Circuit.
Subsequently, the class plaintiffs and the appellant entered into
a settlement agreement pursuant to which the appellant withdrew
and dismissed his appeal with prejudice.  The settlement is,
therefore, final and the case is concluded.


SAIC INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over CityTime
------------------------------------------------------
Jill R. Aitoro, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that an SAIC Inc. shareholder filed a federal class-action suit
against the company and current and former executives in the U.S.
District Court in Alexandria, alleging violation of federal
securities laws during a fraud and kickback scheme involving a New
York City contract.

This is the third lawsuit filed against SAIC for actions
surrounding the CityTime automated payroll project, which was
allegedly the mechanism used by company employees for a
sophisticated fraud scheme.  Two similar complaints were filed in
the Southern District of New York.  All three lawsuits also named
as defendants former company CEO Kenneth Dahlberg, current Chief
Financial Officer Mark Sopp and CityTime project manager Gerard
Denault, who was indicted in early 2011 on charges of kickbacks,
wire fraud and money laundering that took place through the
CityTime project.

Typically class-action lawsuits against public companies are
combined into a single case in one District Court.

The most recent lawsuit was filed in the court district that
includes SAIC's McLean headquarters.  Plaintiff Gregory Williams,
on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
SAIC's common stock between April 11, 2007, and Sept. 1, 2011, is
asking that damages be paid in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest, and that costs and expenses incurred in the
action be reimbursed.

Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the company violated the
1934 Securities Exchange Act by not disclosing valuable
information to shareholders about issues involving the CityTime
contract beginning in 2007, including New York's dissatisfaction
with SAIC's performance under the program and allegations of
fraud, causing investors to misjudge the value of the company's
stock and suffer economic loss when the price declined in the wake
of the scandal.

A spokeswoman for SAIC said the company does not comment on
ongoing litigation.

SAIC announced March 14 that it would pay $500.4 million as part
of the settlement with the U.S. attorney's office over the
CityTime contract.  That amount consists of $370.4 million in
restitution and a $130 million penalty.  The settlement also
terminated a $40 million payment owed to SAIC.


SEA STAR: Faces Antitrust Suit Following Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bonney, writing for The Journal of Commerce Online, reports
that Sea Star Line, Crowley Liner Services and their parent
companies have been hit with a second civil antitrust lawsuit by
shippers that opted out of a class action settlement for carrier
price-fixing in the Puerto Rico trade.

The lawsuit by Kraft Foods and Kellogg Co. was filed in U.S.
District Court in Charleston, S.C.  The suit tracks similar
allegations in a lawsuit filed in the same court by 37 Sea Star
and Crowley customers.  Both lawsuits seek treble damages.

The lawsuits include detailed allegations about a price-fixing
conspiracy that came to light four years ago after federal agents
raided offices of Sea Star, Crowley and Horizon Lines.

A federal criminal investigation has produced guilty pleas by
Horizon, Sea Star and five of their former executives.  Horizon,
Sea Star and Crowley agreed to pay a total of $52.25 million to
settle a class action civil antitrust lawsuit by customers, and $5
million to settle claims by indirect customers.

Numerous shippers opted out of the class action settlement,
leaving them free to sue the carriers individually.  Horizon
reached settlements with the opt-out shippers and is not a
defendant in the latest lawsuits.

Defendants in the Kraft-Kellogg lawsuit are Sea Star, its majority
owner Saltchuk Resources, Crowley Liner Services and its parent,
Crowley Maritime Corp., and Leonard Shapiro, a former Saltchuk
director.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Awaits Rulings on N.Y. Class Suit Dismissal Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its
motions to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in New York, according to the Company's March 28, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, Yongke Xue and Xiaoqin Yan, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On June 20, 2011,
plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York against the Company, all of its individual officers
and/or directors, Yongke Xue, Xiaoqin Yan, Norman Ko, John W.
Smagula, Spring Liu, Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC, BDO
Limited and Rodman & Renshaw,LLC, the underwriter of the Company's
follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010, alleging
violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On August 30, 2011, the court
consolidated the two actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead
plaintiff.

On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.  The consolidated
complaint names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, BDO Limited,
Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and majority shareholders as
defendants and alleges violations of Section 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder.  In the consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking to be awarded, among other
things, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.

The Company believes the allegations are baseless and is
contesting the case vigorously.   In this regard, motions to
dismiss have been submitted to the court.  The Company believes
the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending its
position and has made no accrual for any potential contingencies.


THEGLOBE.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit over theglobe.com, inc.'s
initial public offering has been concluded, the Company disclosed
in its March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On and after August 3, 2001, six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"),
and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering.  The
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the Southern
District of New York on April 19, 2002.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from
November 12, 1998, through December 6, 2000. The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act").
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering and its
secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for
the Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering
were false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a)
control person claims without prejudice.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the coordinated cases, including the Company's, reached
a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in the
coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including theglobe.

On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district court
to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to
appeal.  The District Court ruled that the appellant lacks
standing to appeal.  The appellant appealed the District Court's
decision to the Second Circuit.  Subsequently, appellant entered
into a settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiff class
pursuant to which he dismissed his appeal with prejudice.  As a
result, the settlement among the parties in the IPO Litigation is
final and the case against theglobe.com and the Individual
Defendants is concluded.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Some Acceleration Claims Tentatively Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Zeidler, writing for Reuters, reports that Toyota Motor Corp
has won the tentative dismissal of some claims in the class-action
lawsuit brought by owners of its vehicles over problems with
sudden acceleration.

In what would be a victory for Toyota if the ruling becomes
definitive, U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana,
California, said New York and Florida class representatives cannot
bring claims under their states' laws for lost value in their
vehicles due to Toyota's recalls for sudden, unintended
acceleration.

Toyota, which had filed a motion to dismiss the claims, said it
does not comment on tentative rulings.

Judge Selna was expected to rule definitively sometime after
hearing oral arguments on April 23.

"As set forth herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendants Motion to Dismiss," said Judge Selna in court documents
filed on April 20.

The case consolidates class actions across various states.

Judge Selna in December dismissed a U.S. lawsuit brought by owners
in 14 other countries who said their Toyotas lost value because of
the sudden acceleration problems.

Last June, Judge Selna ruled that Toyota owners outside California
who seek to recover losses from their vehicles' value cannot
pursue their claims under California law.  California consumer
protection laws are more favorable for plaintiffs than those of
most other states.

Toyota has recalled several million vehicles for problems since
late 2009, that owners have linked to unintended acceleration.

The recalls led to hundreds of state and federal lawsuits,
including claims over alleged injuries and deaths and "economic
loss" claims tied to lost resale value.

Judge Selna handles most of the federal cases.

The case is in re:Toyota Motor Corp Unintended Acceleration
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, No. 10-ml-2151.


VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Orit Deutsch in Israel
against a subsidiary of Verint Systems Inc. remains stayed,
according to the Company's April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 31, 2012.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former
employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms.
Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees
and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint
and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the
blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by the
Company's employees or ex-employees during its previous extended
filing delay period.  The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory
damages for the entire class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9,
2009, the Company filed a motion for summary dismissal and
alternatively for the stay of the Labor Motion.  On February 8,
2010, the Tel Aviv Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of
material jurisdiction and ruled that it would be transferred to
the District Court in Tel Aviv.

On October 11, 2011, the District Court in Tel Aviv ordered a stay
of proceedings until legal proceedings in the United States with
respect to related shareholder claims against Comverse Technology
Inc. are concluded.  The parties were to update the District Court
on any developments in the cases by April 4, 2012.


VITA COCO: July 23 Deadline Set for Settlement Claim Form
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucarow LLP; Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC and O'Melveny &
Myers LLP on April 23 issued a statement regarding a settlement
reached in the class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York known as
Fishbein, et al. v. All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco, Case No. 11-
CIV-5580 (JPO).

LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

If you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and
the present you may be entitled to a payment from a class action
settlement.

A settlement, set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation") between the Parties, has been reached in a class
action lawsuit about whether All Market Inc. (d/b/a Vita Coco)
("Vita Coco") misrepresented the health benefits and nutritional
content of its Vita Coco Products, which are defined in the
Stipulation to mean "all coconut water products, regardless of
product line, flavor, and/or unit size, marketed and sold by Vita
Coco in the United States."  Vita Coco denies it did anything
wrong.  The settlement will provide Settlement Class Members (as
defined below) who timely submit a valid Claim Form (as defined in
the Stipulation) with the option of receiving a cash payment or
product voucher.  If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may
send in a Claim Form to receive a cash payment or a product
voucher.  Claim Forms can be obtained at
http://www.vitacocosettlement.com

A federal court authorized this notice.  Before any money is paid,
the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the
settlement.

Am I a Settlement Class Member? You're a Settlement Class Member
if you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and
the present.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are:  (a) Vita
Coco's employees, officers, directors, agents, and
representatives; (b) those who purchased Vita Coco Products for
the purpose of re-sale; (c) all federal judges who have presided
over this case; and (d) all Persons (as defined in the
Stipulation) who have been properly excluded from the Settlement
Class.

What Does the Settlement Provide? Vita Coco agreed to a cash
settlement of $1 million (the "Cash Settlement Fund"), which will
provide for payments to Settlement Class Members who timely file
claims of up to a maximum of $25.00 with Proof of Purchase (as
defined in the Stipulation) and $6.00 without Proof of Purchase.
Vita Coco has agreed to provide $1 million current retail value in
product vouchers, which can be redeemed by Settlement Class
Members who timely file claims in lieu of cash up to a maximum of
$36.00 with Proof of Purchase or $8.00 without Proof of Purchase.
Vita Coco also agreed to institute a program that will change the
labels and advertising of its Vita Coco Products and that will
increase the quality control of its Vita Coco Products.  Vita Coco
has agreed to pay no less than $4 million implementing this
program over a five year period.  Vita Coco also agreed to
distribute Vita Coco Products with a current retail value of $3
million to charitable organizations that promote healthy living
(at a level of $1 million in retail value of product each year).

What are my options? To ask for a payment or product voucher and
remain in the Settlement Class, you must mail a Claim Form or
submit a completed Claim Form online by July 23, 2012.  If you do
not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class by July 23, 2012, or you may
stay in the Settlement Class and object to the settlement by
July 23, 2012.  Visit http://www.vitacocosettlement.comor call 1-
855-375-3055 for important information about the settlement, your
rights and how to file a Claim Form for payment.

The Court will hold a hearing on August 22, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. to
consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement and
whether to grant Class Counsel's (as defined in the Stipulation)
request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and
incentive awards for class representatives.  Class Counsel will
apply to the Court for their fees and expenses not to exceed a
total of $750,000 subject to the terms of the Stipulation.  Class
Counsel will also request that the Court approve Vita Coco's
payment of an "incentive award" of $2,000 to each of the four
class representatives.  Vita Coco will not oppose these requests.
All fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel and incentive
awards awarded to class representatives will be paid by Vita Coco
in addition to the $1 million Cash Settlement Fund and will
therefore have no effect on the Cash Settlement Fund or the other
relief provided by the Stipulation.

For more information, go to http://www.vitacocosettlement.com

Or Call 1-855-375-3055

CLAIM FORMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE BY July 23,
2012.


                           *********

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  * * *